Technology Acceptance within Organizations: Improving Understanding of Failing Technology Projects Using Social Network Analysis and the

Technology Acceptance Model

By

Benjamin Leonard
MBA Marketing & MIS, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota Bachelors of Science - Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Technology, University of Minnesota Graduate Diploma in Management Research, University of South Australia

A thesis submitted for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Division of Business International School of Business

February 2012

Contents

Table of Contents
Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... 8 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 10 Glossary/Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. 12 Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Declaration ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 1 - OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH .................................................................................... 16 1.1 Background of the Problem ................................................................................................. 16 Innovation and technology acceptance is important for success and ROI. ............................... 16 New technology acceptance initiatives are continuing to fail or be underutilized .................... 17 Organizational Adoption is complex with many phases ........................................................... 17 Diffusion of innovation & Technology Acceptance Models have matured ................................ 18 Early phases of contingent technology adoption/acceptance is complex ................................. 18 Social Networks Measures are gaining momentum as antecedents and direct impacts on BI and Usage. ..................................................................................................................................... 19 1.2 Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 19 1.3 Study Rationale ..................................................................................................................... 21 1.3.1 Contribution to knowledge ............................................................................................. 21 1.3.2 Contribution to practice ................................................................................................. 23 1.4 Structure of Dissertation........................................................................................................ 24 1.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 26 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 26 2.2 Organizational Innovation...................................................................................................... 29 2.2.1 Organizational Innovation & Adoption ............................................................................ 29 2.2.2 Strength of Weak Ties .................................................................................................... 34 2.3 Diffusion of Innovations and Technology Acceptance ............................................................ 36

2.3.1 Technology Acceptance Model ....................................................................................... 36 2.3.2 Diffusion of Innovations.................................................................................................. 37 2.3.3 Personal Innovativeness ................................................................................................. 38 2.4 Social Network Analysis ......................................................................................................... 38 2.4.1 Organizational Sciences Hawthorne Studies ................................................................. 39 2.4.2 Network Theory ............................................................................................................. 40 2.4.4 Structural Hole Theory.................................................................................................... 40 2.4.5 Social Capital .................................................................................................................. 42 2.4.6 Simmelian Ties ............................................................................................................... 43 2.4.7 Centrality ....................................................................................................................... 45 2.4.8 Agent-Based Modeling ................................................................................................... 46 2.5 Technology Acceptance Integrating Social Network Analysis.................................................. 46 2.5.1 Model of Acceptance with Peer Support ......................................................................... 46 2.5.2 Social Information Processing Model (SIPM) ................................................................... 48 2.5.3 Tie Strength .................................................................................................................... 51 2.6 Gaps in the current knowledge or theory ............................................................................... 52 2.6.1 Evaluate data and insight on failed technology acceptance ............................................. 52 2.6.2 Evaluate data and insight on contingent acceptance within the earlier stages of adoption/acceptance. ............................................................................................................. 53 2.6.3 Explanatory Models: ....................................................................................................... 54 2.6.4 Account for Heterogeneity: ............................................................................................ 54 2.6.5 Account for Network Dynamics: ..................................................................................... 54 2.6.6 Take Advantage of Richer Data: ...................................................................................... 54 2.6.7 Network Dynamics over Time: ........................................................................................ 54 2.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 55 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ............................................................................ 56 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 56 3.2 Hypothesis Development and Key Variables .......................................................................... 56 3.2.1 Key variables (dependent, moderating, intervening) and a conceptual framework ......... 56 3.2.2 Definitions of the Constructs and Measures of Constructs .............................................. 59 3.2.3 Hypothesis - how will they help answer the Research Questions .................................... 62 3.3 Research Design .................................................................................................................... 71 3.3.1 Type of Sample and sample size determination .............................................................. 71 3.3.2 Survey Instrument and Measures ................................................................................... 75 3

3.3.3 Data Collection Process .................................................................................................. 77 3.3.4 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 78 3.3.5 Validity and Reliability of the Study ................................................................................ 83 3.4 The longitudinal Study ........................................................................................................... 88 3.4.1 Location of the Study ...................................................................................................... 88 3.4.2 Subjects or Participants .................................................................................................. 89 3.4.3 Technologies used for the study ..................................................................................... 89 3.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 93 CHAPTER 4 - DATA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 94 4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 94 4.2 Data Management prior to entry ........................................................................................... 94 4.3 Initial data analysis for suitability ........................................................................................... 94 4.4 Reliability / Loadings (Pooled for all projects & times)............................................................ 95 4.4.1 Internal Consistency Reliability ....................................................................................... 95 4.4.1 Covariance between Independent Variables and Behavioral Intention ............................ 96 4.5 Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................................................. 97 4.5.1 Frequencies .................................................................................................................... 97 4.5.2 Descriptive Statistics for Factors ..................................................................................... 99 4.5.3 Normality, Linearity, and Homoscedasticity .................................................................. 103 4.6 Inter-Correlations among Study Variables ............................................................................ 110 4.7 Multiple Regression ............................................................................................................. 113 4.7.1 Hierarchical Regression Results for Behavioral Intention............................................... 115 4.7.3 Hierarchical Regression Results for Performance Expectancy ........................................ 119 4.7.4 Hierarchical Regression Results for Effort Expectancy ................................................... 121 4.7.5 Hierarchical Regression Results for Facilitating Conditions ............................................ 123 4.7.6 Overall Regression Model Results ................................................................................. 125 4.8 Social Network Graphs ........................................................................................................ 128 4.8.1 Event Management System .......................................................................................... 128 4.8.2 Enterprise Project Management ................................................................................... 156 4.10 Social Network Mapping Survey Results to Networks......................................................... 165 4.10.1 Effort Expectancy ....................................................................................................... 166 4.10.2 Social Influence .......................................................................................................... 167 4.10.3 Facilitating Conditions ................................................................................................ 169 4.10.4 Behavioral Intention ................................................................................................... 170 4

4.10.5 Implicit social influence .............................................................................................. 172 4.11 Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................................................ 173 RQ1-3: Coping and Influencing Network impact on the traditional UTAUT model factors? .... 173 RQ4: Influencing Network Effects on Project Success ............................................................ 175 4.13 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 176 CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 177 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 177 5.2 What the overall study found .............................................................................................. 177 Social Networks are relevant to Technology Acceptance ....................................................... 177 The performance expectancy of an individuals network neighbors impacts their performance expectancy ............................................................................................................................ 178 Social Network Analysis gives a new visibility of Technology Acceptance at both the macro and micro levels. .......................................................................................................................... 178 Inhibitors or structural problems of the Coping and Influencing Network that could negatively impact the organizational adoption or individual technology acceptance become visible in the network graphs ..................................................................................................................... 179 Social Network Analysis of the Influencing and Coping Networks show ties between the organizational adoption and individual acceptance in contingent technology acceptance. .... 180 5.3 What do these results mean to organizations ...................................................................... 180 How the theory is extended .................................................................................................. 180 What aspects are falsified ..................................................................................................... 180 False Leads............................................................................................................................ 181 How does the organizational context restrict you and may create false possibilities for future researchers? ......................................................................................................................... 181 How practitioners can translate these findings directly to innovations and processes that you targeted, and what analogous tasks the findings can be extended to .................................... 181 Which technology characteristics were of critical importance ............................................... 183 The sustaining and disruptive nature of the innovation studied ............................................. 183 5.4 How these results fit with theories and results underlying or relevant to them .................... 184 Diffusion of Innovation & Technology Acceptance Models .................................................... 184 Model of Acceptance with Peer Support (MAPS) ................................................................... 184 5.5 How the results fit with or not fit with past evidence in IS, and why .................................... 185 Organizational Adoption is complex with many phases ......................................................... 185 Early phases of contingent technology adoption/acceptance is complex ............................... 186 Innovation and technology acceptance is important for success and ROI. ............................. 187

5.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 187 CHAPTER 6 - CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 189 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 189 6.2 Summary of Research .......................................................................................................... 189 6.3 Contribution to Knowledge .................................................................................................. 189 Expand the Understanding of Influencing and Coping Network on Technology Acceptance ... 190 Combine Social Network Analysis Perspective with UTAUT Perspective................................. 190 Provide insight on the early stages of contingent acceptance initiatives that eventually failed or where significantly delayed ................................................................................................... 191 Provide a new technology context researched in technology acceptance .............................. 191 Use of snowball surveys to bridge hierarchies and organizations ........................................... 191 6.4 Contribution to practice ...................................................................................................... 191 Provide an additional real-world example on using Social Network Analysis within an Organization to Support Technology Acceptance. ................................................................. 192 Insight for Better Technology Acceptance Planning ............................................................... 192 Improve Likelihood of Successful Technology Acceptance ..................................................... 192 Better Mechanism to Identify Change Inhibitors ................................................................... 193 6.5 Study Limitations ................................................................................................................. 193 Context limitations ................................................................................................................ 193 Data gathering limitations ..................................................................................................... 194 Variables selection limitations ............................................................................................... 194 Analytical limitations ............................................................................................................. 195 Technology and innovation feature constraints limitations.................................................... 195 Theoretical and practical limitations...................................................................................... 195 6.6 Future Research .................................................................................................................. 195 Future research that addresses limitations of the research ................................................... 195 New project contexts such as successful projects or non-contingent TAM ............................. 196 More Data Longitudinal Studies of the Coping and Influencing Network................................ 196 Action Research while leveraging the Social Network Modeling and measuring TAM perceptions ............................................................................................................................................. 196 References .................................................................................................................................... 197 Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 207 Appendix A Survey Questionnaire........................................................................................... 208 Acceptance of New Technology Survey .......................................................................... 208 6

Appendix B Information Sheet ................................................................................................ 215 Appendix C Second Survey Correspondence ........................................................................... 217 Appendix D Consent Form ...................................................................................................... 219 Appendix E Ethics Approval .................................................................................................... 220 Appendix F Statistical Syntax from SPSS to calculate results .................................................... 221 Appendix G - Addressing procedures for ensuring sound ethical practices ................................. 227

List of Figures
Figure 1 - Basic model of the different conceptual areas; leveraging constructs from technology acceptance, social networks, and organizational innovation. The light green boxes make up the foundation of this research. The red circle shows the key constructs .............................................. 27 Figure 2 - Timeline of significant research & theories for technology adoption/acceptance and organizational/social networks ........................................................................................................ 28 Figure 3 Organizational Level Acceptance Factors from Frambach and Schillewaerts 2002 ............. 32 Figure 4 Individual Acceptance Factors from Frambach and Schillewaert 2002 ............................... 33 Figure 5 - Conceptual Model proposed for Traditional Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology ...................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 6 Social Capital Framework Propose by Adler and Know 2002 .............................................. 43 Figure 7 - Model used in Sykes et al. 2009 ....................................................................................... 47 Figure 8 - Combined TAM and SIPM model from Lee et al. 2003 ...................................................... 50 Figure 9 - Venkatesh conceptual model for the Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT)(Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) .......................................................................................... 57 Figure 10 - Extension of the Unified Theory and Use of Technology incorporating the actual network connections of the populations dyads to represent the social influence factor ............................... 58 Figure 11 Longitudinal Approach to Data Collection......................................................................... 78 Figure 12 - Example of Organizational Social Network constructed from asking respondents "List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you get help from for effective use of the Event Registration System". .............................................................................. 82 Figure 13 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of Performance Expectancy and Behavioral Intention ................ 105 Figure 14 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of an individuals Influence Network Neighbors Performance Expectancy and their own Performance ........................................................................................ 106 Figure 15 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of an individuals Influence Network Neighbors Performance Expectancy and their own Use Behavior ........................................................................................ 107 Figure 16 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of an individuals Coping Network Neighbors Performance Expectancy and their own Performance Expectancy ...................................................................... 108 Figure 17 Plot of Linear Curve Fit Normalized Coping Centrality and their own Effort Expectancy .. 109 Figure 18 - Statistically Significant R2 Regression Results ................................................................ 127 Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network........................................................................................ 136 Figure 20 EMS Pre-pilot Coping Network Grouping ........................................................................ 136 8

Figure 21 EMS Post-Pilot Coping Network ...................................................................................... 142 Figure 22 EMS Post Pilot Coping Network Grouping....................................................................... 143 Figure 23 EMS Pre Pilot Influencing Network ................................................................................. 148 Figure 24 EMS Pre-Pilot Influencing Groups ................................................................................... 149 Figure 25 EMS Post Pilot Influencing Network ............................................................................... 154 Figure 26 EMS Post-Pilot Influencing Groups ................................................................................. 155 Figure 27 EPM Pre Pilot Coping Network ....................................................................................... 159 Figure 28 EPM Pre-Pilot Coping Groups ......................................................................................... 160 Figure 29 EPM Post Pilot Coping Network ...................................................................................... 161 Figure 30 EPM Pre Pilot Influencing Network ................................................................................. 163 Figure 31 EPM Pre-Pilot Influencing Groups .................................................................................. 164 Figure 32 EPM Post Pilot Influencing Network ............................................................................... 165 Figure 33 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Effort Expectancy Mapping . 166 Figure 34 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Effort Expectancy Mapping 167 Figure 35 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Social Influence Mapping .... 168 Figure 36 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Social Influence Mapping .. 169 Figure 37 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Facilitating Conditions Mapping ...................................................................................................................................................... 169 Figure 38 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Facilitating Conditions Mapping ........................................................................................................................................ 170 Figure 39 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Behavioral Intention Mapping ...................................................................................................................................................... 171 Figure 40 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Behavioral Intention Mapping ...................................................................................................................................................... 172 Figure 41 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Implicit Social Influence Mapping ........................................................................................................................................ 172 Figure 42 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Implicit Social Influence Mapping ........................................................................................................................................ 173

List of Tables
Table 1 List of the two conceptual models used to determining their predictability in this research. 21 Table 2 Research Hypotheses .......................................................................................................... 69 Table 3 - Summary of unique surveys for different technologies, time, and individuals .................... 72 Table 4 - Coded attributes for participants not collected in survey ................................................... 79 Table 5 - Survey Instrument Question Sources and Types of Participants ......................................... 84 Table 6 - Summary of Technologies Used in Study ........................................................................... 93 Table 7 - Reliability Statistics............................................................................................................ 95 Table 8 - Estimates of Fixed Effects for Covariance between Company and Behavioral Intention ..... 96 Table 9 - Estimates of Covariance Parameters for Covariance between Company and Behavioral Intention ......................................................................................................................................... 96 Table 10 Estimates of Fixed Effects for Covariance between Role and Behavioral Intention ............. 96 Table 11 Estimates of Covariance Parameters for Covariance between Role and Behavioral Intention ........................................................................................................................................................ 96 Table 12 Department Frequencies of Participants ............................................................................ 97 Table 13 Company Frequencies of Participants ................................................................................ 97 Table 14 Location Frequencies for Participants ............................................................................... 98 Table 15 Technology Frequency for Participants ............................................................................. 99 Table 16 Age Frequencies for Participants ....................................................................................... 99 Table 17 Experience Frequencies for Participants ........................................................................... 99 Table 18 - Descriptive Statistics for Factors (Pooled) ...................................................................... 100 Table 19 Descriptive Statistics for Factors (EMS Pre-Pilot).............................................................. 101 Table 20 Descriptive Statistics for Factors (EMS Post-Pilot) ............................................................ 101 Table 21 Descriptive Statistics for Factors (EPM Pre-Pilot) ............................................................. 102 Table 22 Descriptive Statistics for Factors (EPM Post-Pilot) ............................................................ 103 Table 23 Correlation Matrix ........................................................................................................... 113 Table 24 - Hierarchical Regression Results for Behavioral Intention ............................................... 116 Table 25 Hierarchical Regressions Results for System Use .............................................................. 118 10

Table 26 Hierarchical Regression Results for Performance Expectancy........................................... 120 Table 27 Hierarchical Regression Results for Effort Expectancy ...................................................... 122 Table 28 Hierarchical Regression Results for Facilitating Conditions ............................................... 124 Table 29 - Hypothesis Results ........................................................................................................ 174

11

Glossary/Abbreviations
BI Behavioral Intention CSR Customer Service Representative EE Effort Expectancy EMS Event Management System, also referred to as Event Registration System EPM Enterprise Project Management FC Facilitating Conditions IS Information Systems ISI Implicit Social Influence Ops - operations PE Performance Expectancy PM Project Manager SI Social Influence SU System Usage UTAUT - Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

12

Abstract
Innovation and technology acceptance is important for the success of organizations, yet new technology projects continue to fail or be underutilized. Although technology acceptance has matured, organizational adoption at its earlier phases and the contingent relationship between individual technology acceptance of users and organization adoption is complex and not well understood or researched. This research longitudinally explored the early phases of two contingent new technology projects that eventually failed after pilot phases. This exploration was done through the lens of Social Network Analysis of the Influencing and Coping Social Networks the factors of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Social Network Analysis measures are gaining momentum as antecedents and direct impacts on Behavioral Intention and System Usage in addition to their ability to bridge the macro and micro level understanding of technology acceptance through understanding how actors cope with new technologies and influence each other over time. This study sought to further understand the organizational technology acceptance in the early phases of a contingent acceptance of a new technology, by understanding if the influencing or coping networks add additional explanatory power of the behavioral intention and system usage over the traditional UTAUT model. In addition to the direct impacts on behavioral intention and system usage, this study also looked at the informal influencing and coping network factors as antecedents of traditional technology acceptance factors of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and facilitating conditions from the traditional UTAUT model. This traditional regression analysis of this study showed that an actors coping centrality and the performance expectancy of that actors neighbors significantly impact their own performance expectancy. This further supported earlier work on the importance of network position on technology acceptance. This more traditional research approach was then augmented by a longitudinal evaluation of the dynamics of the actors within the social networks before and after their respective pilots to understand if using a social network graphs of the influencing and coping networks with the UTUAT perception factors could improve the likelihood of success of the projects for practitioners. The longitudinal evaluation of the actors within the social network graphs supported the traditional research approach finding, but more importantly gave significant additional insight into the dynamics of the macro and micro level understanding of technology acceptance through understanding how actors coped with new technologies across organizational boundaries over time. The longitudinal evaluation also showed how the central influential actors changed over time which resulted in the breakdown of a high density coping and influencing network centered on individuals who have positive performance expectancy into a disjoint and less dense coping and influencing network centered on individuals with negative performance expectancy. These dramatic influencing and coping network changes during the early phases of these contingent technology acceptance efforts coincided with the eventual cancelation or de-scoping of the projects. This demonstrated that social network graphs have the potential to bring visibility to acceptance inhibitors and bridge the organizational and individual decisions, which has significant impacts for practitioners and suggestions for future research.

13

Declaration
This thesis presents work carried out by myself and does not incorporate without acknowledgment any material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university; to the best of my knowledge it does not contain any materials previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text; and all substantive contributions by others to the work presented, including jointly authored publications, are clearly acknowledged.

Benjamin P Leonard

July 21, 2011

14

Acknowledgments
In this study, I was the recipient of generous help and support of many people. Without their support and advice, this study would have been difficult to accomplish. For their help, I am grateful to all of them. Each day I am blessed with my wife, Yvonne, and my four sons: Bearach, Patrick, Ronan, & Cormac for their support and patience allowing me to follow a dream. I am also fortunate to have supportive parents who impressed on me their passion for education and gaining knowledge at any level. I wish to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Doug Vogel who provided the steering, resources, and feedback I needed to become a researcher. I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues Tim Boileau, Matt Googins, and Scott Heintzeman who supported me in many ways in the dual life of being a practitioner and researcher in a demanding job during this study. The generosity of time from the leaders and study participants in the organization that was the subject of this study was invaluable. There are countless family, friends, colleagues, and fellow students that provided me encouragement or support. To all of these individuals, I am deeply indebted.

15

Benjamin Leonard Page 16

CHAPTER 1 - OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH

The research problem for this thesis is the lack of understanding of how to better leverage social network analysis of the informal coping and influencing networks within an organization to better understand, monitor, predict, and improve the success and acceptance of new innovation or technology projects. To that end, practitioners or researchers trying to improve the success of new technology or innovation projects could significantly benefit from understanding how the informal networks influence the perceptions and usage of new innovations or technologies. Examples of insights that a practitioner or researcher could gain from addressing this problem could include: Who are the central actors helping an organization cope with a new innovation? Who has the most influence over an innovations acceptance, how much influence do they have, and what are their perceptions of the innovation or new technology? Are there informal groups of users that are tightly connected or are they disjoint and less dense with many isolated individuals? Do these influencing and coping networks change during the early phases of projects contingent on both organizational and individual acceptance? Or simply, do the social network graphs have the potential to bring visibility to acceptance inhibitors and bridge the organizational and individual decisions?

1.1 Background of the Problem

The importance of this research problem is underscored by understanding six areas; how important innovation and technology acceptance is for organizational success and ROI, the high failure rate of new technology acceptance initiatives, the complexities of organizational adoption, the maturing models of technology acceptance, the complexities of early phases of contingent technology acceptance, and the increasing focus of social network metrics on behavioral intention and usage of new technologies. These areas are further explained in the following six sections.

Innovation and technology acceptance is important for success and ROI.

New innovations often in the form of new systems or software has become more critical to almost every facet of modern day life (Mann 2002). Innovation has been shown to be key driver of corporate success, this is especially true for younger companies whose growth comes from finding new markets with innovative new products (Cardozo R, K et al. 1993). The acceptance of new technologies such as information systems is also becoming more critical in the competitive global environment (Lee, Kim et al. 2006). These new innovations create several issues for organizations who need to successfully implement them to gain the potential benefits or return on investment. Within organizations, older technologies are continually being replaced by new innovations to drive improved productivity or

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 17 deliver new services, but they are only successful when the employees or users accept and effectively use the new technology (Lee, Kim et al. 2006).

New technology acceptance initiatives are continuing to fail or be underutilized

Devaraj and Kohli also remind us that its not the investment in the technology that is the key to success, its the usage. Many innovations also fail due to the lack of acceptance by employees, so understanding the factors of user acceptance and improving the acceptance of new technologies is important for the success organizations (Talukder 2008). Even though research has been able to tie impacts of technology on organizational performance (Devaraj and Kohli 2003), it does not address the IT Payoff; specifically the dollars invested in IT is not a good measure of the effectiveness of IT, its the usage thats critical (Devaraj and Kohli 2003). There are many reasons for failed technical projects but lack of acceptance or non-involvement of users is a common source of failure. Non-adoption or acceptance could mean many different things to individual non-adopters because they might have actively or passively decided to reject the innovation; alternatively it could be that non-adopters have not reached that point in the adoption process yet (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). What is important is that when a new technology project outright fails, or fails to be utilized adequately, it has a significant financial impact. Emam and Kuru also found that 26% to 34% of new technology projects were considered failures due to performance or cancellation (Emam and Koru 2008). Overall, there is a continued call for more research on failed technology acceptance initiatives (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002) due to their complexities.

Organizational Adoption is complex with many phases

Adoption is often used to describe to the decision of an organization to make use of an innovation. If acceptance of individuals in that organization is contingent upon a prior organization adoption, its referred to as contingent innovation decision or forced adoption (Ram and Jung 1991; Rogers 2003). Organizational adoption is significantly different then user acceptance and the decision process could vary from organization to organization because different factors or technology attributes could be important to each. Frambach and Schillewaert developed a widely cited multi-level framework of determinants which provided two levels of acceptance factors to address both the individual and organizational acceptance (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). The factors at the organizational level included both perceived innovation characteristics and adopter characteristics. The perceived innovation characteristics of compatibility, complexity, observability, and trial ability are leveraged from the diffusion of innovation research thread (Rogers 2003). The organization adopter characteristics that impact organizational adoption are organization size (Kennedy 1983), organization structure (Zaltman, Duncan et al. 1973), and organizational innovativeness (Morrison 1996). The longitudinal nature and process of organizational and individual adoption is also not widely understood, which adds further layers of complexity. Most studies focus on dichotomous adoption/non-adoption process but we know little about effect of different factors at the various SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 18 stages of that process (Olshavsky and Spreng 1996). Further research has been suggested on organizational adoption in several areas, such as why some technologies do not become adopted (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002), understanding the pre-adoption stage, influence of supplier activities on innovation adoption within the organization, critical mass on innovation adoption and the impact of network externalities (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002).

Diffusion of innovation & Technology Acceptance Models have matured

The individual technology acceptance research threads have been extensively researched and matured to the level were the significant factors can now explain the majority of the behavioral intention and usage variance (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003). Some of the earlier research by Rogers (Rogers 2003) used factors that were more relevant to organizational adoption, but Daviss technology acceptance model has become the foundation for most of the individual technology acceptance models for the last two decades (Davis 1986). In the evolutionary variations based on the technology acceptance model, perceived usability and perceived ease of use continued to show up as the most common factors of technology acceptance, while a host of other factors and moderators have been evaluated since the introduction of the Technology Acceptance Model. Eight of these model variations were evaluated and consolidated into the United Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) in 2003. This model used four core determinants of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social norm, and facilitating conditions to explain up to 70% of the variance in user intention (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003), with performance expectancy continuing to be the largest factor. Knowing the high explanatory power of the UTAUT, it could be assumed that this is a mature research thread as stated by Venkatesh, Morris et al. Given that UTAUT explains as much as 70 percent of the variance in intention, it is possible that we may be approaching the practical limits of our ability to explain individual acceptance and usage decisions in organizations. In reality there are other challenges; such as addressing the impacts of the social impacts and acceptance in earlier stages of a contingent technology acceptance initiatives (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003; Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). These might not yield significantly higher explanation of the variance of usage, but they could be the antecedents of the core factors for technology acceptance, yield significant understanding at the micro-level, and provide practical knowledge for managers.

Early phases of contingent technology adoption/acceptance is complex

Organizational adoption of innovations is more complex than individual adoption because of such a higher number of stages involved in the adoption decision, and the effects of organizational structure (Ram and Jung 1991). The longitudinal nature and process of organizational and individual adoption is not widely understood, which adds additional layers of complexity. Most studies focus on dichotomous adoption/non-adoption process but we know little about effect of different factors at the various stages(Olshavsky and Spreng 1996). In an organizations there are significant dependencies between the two decision processes at both the organizational and individual level, for example the managers central to the organizational decision process could have significant influence on the individual decision process by categorizing it, SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 19 setting some of the evaluation criteria when comparing it to a previous technology, and clearly communicating some of its benefits and appropriate use (Olshavsky and Spreng 1996).

Social Networks Measures are gaining momentum as antecedents and direct impacts on BI and Usage.
A more recent research thread is now bringing together user acceptance and the social network analysis to address the quantitative impacts and understanding of the impacts of social networks within organizations. A recent example of this is the Model of Acceptance with Peer Support (MAPS) that enhances the constructs of the belief-based Technology Acceptance Model, organizational innovation, and Social Network tools. This was introduced in the 2009 work of Tracy Sykes, Viswanath Venkatesh, and Sanjay Gosain (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). This type of a model distinguishes between social network perspective and individual intention models. Two key constructs used are network density and network centrality. Network density describes the connectedness of a network which is the actual number of ties in a network as a proportion of the maximum possible number of ties. Network centrality was defined as the extent of an individual involvement in assistance exchanges with coworkers (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). This is consistent with other research which has shown that for successful diffusion of a new technology where it is important to form positive impressions to central actors of a social network (Burt 1987; Papa 1988; Lee, Cho et al. 2003). Based on the research, the behavioral intention or system-use was shown to increase with network centrality, so actors who are centrally located within organizational networks enjoy a broad array of benefits and opportunities (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). There are three social network concepts involved in this research that are helpful in understanding the dynamics of technology acceptance within an organization when it comes to new technologies that help provide understanding of the actions of some actors. The first two are the concepts of coping (knowledge sharing) and influencing (changing system) pathways within the network which are typically unavailable to those on the periphery with longer pathways or isolated from the network altogether (Ibarra and Andrews 1993; Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). The third is coadoption; this is relevant because people in central structural positions in a network will have more influence over system design and can adjust it to their needs which is often labeled as co-adoption, thus driving up their usage. This merging of social network analysis and technology acceptance opens up several avenues for future research that relate to conceptualizations and constructs related to social networks (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). Some of these could include changing social networks over time, the role of Simmilian ties on technology acceptance, the networks interactions of organizational decision makers and individual users, and the role of social networks on the failure of new technologies.

1.2 Research Questions

Given the increased understanding of blending technology acceptance model and social network analysis constructs, its important to see if they provide explanatory benefits in various scenarios of technology acceptance that have proven to be challenging in previous research but important to IS SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 20 leaders. These include failed new technology implementations or struggling contingent acceptance at its early stages which could benefit by looking at them through the lens of social network analysis and UTAUT. The first research question is to further expand the work from MAPS (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009) on our understanding of the influencing network on Behavioral Intention and System Use. RQ1: For organizational technology acceptance in the early phases of a contingent acceptance of a new technology, does the informal influencing network add additional explanatory power of the behavioral intention and system usage over the traditional UTAUT model? The second research question is to look at the influencing network connections and position as an antecedent of the traditional factor, Performance Expectancy, in the UTAUT model. RQ2: For organizational technology acceptance in the early phases of a contingent acceptance of a new technology, do the informal influencing networks impact the performance expectancy of the traditional UTAUT model? The third research question is to look at the coping network connections and position as an antecedent of the traditional factors, Effort Expectancy and Facilitating Conditions, in the UTAUT model. RQ3: For organizational technology acceptance in the early phases of a contingent acceptance of a new technology, do the informal coping networks impact the Effort Expectancy or Facilitating Conditions of the traditional UTAUT model? To answer this first three research questions, the study needed to determine the amount of explained variance from the mean that is accountable for the factors (Adjusted R2) in each conceptual model for of these factors. The adjusted R2 value was chosen to adjust the explained variance based on the number of variables or degrees of freedom.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 21

Table 1 List of the two conceptual models used to determining their predictability in this research. Competing Conceptual Models

MODEL 1: Traditional Model of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTUAT)
As shown in Figure 9 - Venkatesh conceptual model for the Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT)(Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003)

MODEL 2: Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTUAT) incorporating the Coping and Influencing Networks Centrality and Neighbors Performance Expectancy within these networks.
As shown in Figure 10 - Extension of the Unified Theory and Use of Technology incorporating the actual network connections of the populations dyads to represent the social influence factor

The fourth research question is more qualitative, then quantitative, but is used uncover if using social network graphs merged with technology acceptance perceptions would add valuable insight to managers in the process of planning, executing, and monitoring a technology acceptance project and potentially increase the likelihood of identifying potential problems, opportunities, or key resources for specific roles to help in their day-to-day decision making. R4: For organizational technology acceptance in the early phases of a contingent acceptance of a new technology, would using a social network graphs of the influencing and coping networks with the UTUAT perception data improve the likelihood of success of the project?

1.3 Study Rationale

The need for this research is to improve both research and practitioner understanding and effectiveness regarding technology acceptance.

1.3.1 Contribution to knowledge

This research will contribute to information system research by expanding our understanding of organizational technology acceptance in five ways which include evaluating if there is increased explanatory power of the UTAUT model when including social network constructs, provide insight on the early stages of contingent acceptance initiatives that eventually failed or where significantly delayed, provide data on event management systems and enterprise project management systems, show the usage of snowball surveys to bridge hierarchies and organizations. The following sections discuss these in more detail.

Evaluating if there is increased explanatory power of the UTAUT model when including social network constructs
SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 22 Explanatory power of technology acceptance necessitates both a micro and macro level understanding of the decision making process to accept a technology. Rather than taking the more common aggregate view of modeling technology acceptance as is common with the Bass Model or its descendants for diffusion of innovations as described in Meades 2006 meta-analysis (Meade and Islam 2006), I will focus on individual social network analysis to create more understanding of both the micro and macro-levels of technology acceptance from a single approach and model. Similar to the original MAPs research (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009), one objective of this research is to see if social network constructs could potentially add significant explanatory power of technology acceptance. The UTAUT study showed adjusted R2 values of up to .70, the MAPS (Venkatesh, Brown et al. 2008) research wasnt able to demonstrate that level of adjusted R2, but it did show that the social constructs are a significant factor on system use. Zhang and Suns meta-analysis has found relatively low explanatory power in technology acceptance through a meta-analysis of 8 models which typically were accounting for 40% overall of our understanding of Behavioral Intention. Zhang and Suns meta-analysis has also shown the significance of subjective norm or social influence on technology acceptance within mandatory environments such as organizations but it decreases over time (Sun and Zhang 2005), which is one of the reasons why this research is focused on the social network impacts on organizational technology acceptance with longitudinal surveys.

Expand the Understanding of Influencing and Coping Network on Technology Acceptance

Earlier research has shown that the behavioral intention or system-use was shown to increase with network centrality, so actors who are centrally located within organizational networks enjoy a broad array of benefits and opportunities (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). This research is focused on validating this finding and expanding it further to understand if the influencing or coping network centrality and the impact of neighbors perceptions on behavioral intention and some of it antecedents.

Combine Social Network Analysis Perspective with UTAUT Perspective

Being part of a coping or influencing network has been shown to influence behavioral intention and system use (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009) and this research will look at these social network graphs overlaid with the factors from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology(Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) to see how the two could be leveraged together.

Provide insight on the early stages of contingent acceptance initiatives that eventually failed or where significantly delayed
The two technology acceptance projects used in this research were in the early stages of a contingent technology acceptance where both the organizational decision was overlapped with a user pilot. The main focus is on the users, but since these are in the early stages of a contingent acceptance, it provides very unique data. One project was cancelled after the pilot and the other met significant delays.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 23 A social network view could help show how the help networks and resource controlling mechanisms are supporting or hindering the system use (Sykes 2009). In this case, does it shed additional light on the failure of the technology initiatives? Emam and Kuru also found that 26 to 34% of new technology projects were considered failures due to performance or cancellation(Emam and Koru 2008). There is a continued call for more research on failed technology acceptance initiatives ((Frambach and Schillewaert 2002) due to their complexities.

Provide a new technology context researched in technology acceptance

In researching the literature for this study, there were many technologies that had been researched previously, especially when it comes to technologies that are used by larger user-bases, such as laptops, mobile phones. For the two technologies used in the study, Event Management System and Enterprise Project Management System, the researcher was unable to find examples with these two technologies.

Use of snowball surveys to bridge hierarchies and organizations

One of the areas mentioned for future research is the idea of hierarchy and boundary spanning for social network analysis within organizations (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). In this research, a snow-ball survey approach was taken where the connection survey questions were open-ended and additional surveys were sent to newly identified users to attempt to observe the non-obvious hierarchy and boundary spanning. This is significantly different than using a fixed list of users and having the users identify which ones they interact with, which can be limiting because it might not identify all of the network connections that are not obvious to management or the researcher.

1.3.2 Contribution to practice

For practitioners this research will provide an example of showing on how to perform social network analysis within an organization to support technology acceptance, provide better insight for better technology acceptance planning, improve the likelihood of successful technology acceptance, and

Provide an additional real-world example on using Social Network Analysis within an Organization to Support Technology Acceptance.
Social Network Analysis is still an emerging skillset and the toolsets are highly limited to academic researchers, graduate students, and a small set of companies and government entities that are now focusing on the relationships between individuals, not just their attributes such as marketing and social media companies. These are generally not exposed to the larger technology industry and there is little commercial training in their use. Thus for a knowledgeable technology practitioner, there is little available to help provide the steps necessary to develop an actionable social network model to better support a technology acceptance initiative. This is clearly not training material, but tackling real-world problems with new approaches and exploring the challenges and opportunities in the results helps close the academia-practitioner gap for this domain.

Insight for Better Technology Acceptance Planning

The significance of this research is that it could provide a more deterministic modeling approach for the technology acceptance within a network. This could benefit marketers or change agents in SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 24 creating their new technology change management, roll-out planning, or communication plans. Operationally, a combination of user perceptions and appropriate social network graphs could be used in the planning and testing of specific communication plans, training plans, and efficient deployment of change agents. The coping and influencing networks (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009) would provide valuable insight while assigning roles and choosing resources for a pilot. Communications and training plans could be more effectively targeted based on network and perception roles. For example an isolated resource would require more hands-on training then someone who already has a high usage and is very central in the coping network. Usage of technology acceptance perception values will also help with the planning; this general approach of using pre implementation surveys on factors such as perceived usability to better plan and predict usage is valuable and was shown to be a strong predictor six months later in (Davis and Venkatesh 2004)

Improve Likelihood of Successful Technology Acceptance

Recent literature has emphasized the financial costs of inaccurate innovation adoption modeling. First, misreading the adoption of a new innovation in the early stages is costly; over-optimism could yield wasted investments and misreading slow adoption could yield managerial decision to discontinue a potentially successful product. To better read the diffusion, we must understand the tipping point, which in early stage adoption is an outcome of the social networks which are nonuniform (Dattee and Weil 2007). Second, the importance of diffusion of innovations or technology acceptance into organizations is growing in popularity as the ability for a company to quickly implement new technology innovations is becoming more fundamental to their competitiveness (Tether and Tajar 2008 ).

Better Mechanism to Identify Change Inhibitors

Social networks have been shown to a reveal ties that channel or bottle-neck information in the organization. These identified bottlenecks are often central nodes that provide the only connection between separate groups of the network (Abrahamson and Rosenkopf 1997) (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). There is frustration on the lack of explanatory feedback from innovation adoption or acceptance and the inhibitors to adoption from the aggregate models. This requires better disaggregate models which can account for the non-smooth life cycle shapes that can result from lack of reference or opinion leaders or substitution innovations (Dattee and Weil 2007). There is also a demand for deeper insight into the inhibitors and stimulators of diffusion of innovations into organizations at both an aggregate and individual level to help suppliers market their products more effectively (Framback 2002). The work of Devaraj and Kohli suggest that failure systems to show productivity improvements are due to a lack of system use(Devaraj and Kohli 2003). A social network view could help show how the help networks and resource controlling mechanisms are supporting or hindering the system use (Sykes 2009). In this case, does it shed additional light on the failure of the technology initiatives?

1.4 Structure of Dissertation

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 25 This dissertation is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1, the Introduction provides an introduction the background to this research, the need, research questions, and structure of the dissertation. Chapter 2, the Literature Review, provides an overview of the related theories, key constructs and significant prior research that provides the foundation that this research builds upon. The chapter has five sections which provide an overview of prior research on organizational innovation, diffusion of innovation and technology acceptance, social network theories, and the integration of technology acceptance and social network analysis. These sections are followed a description of how this research contributes to the prior research and a summary of the chapter. Chapter 3, Design and Methodology chapter describes the architecture of the Design and Methodology that was used for the study, with the goal of providing enough guidance to duplicate this study by a knowledgeable researcher. This chapter starts by describing the hypothesis development and key variables and how they help answer the research questions. This is then followed by the research design section which addresses the types of sample and sample size, survey instrument and measures, data collection process, data analysis, validity, and reliability issues for this type of this research. Next, the longitudinal study section describes the location of the study, subjects, and technologies used for the study. The chapter is then concluded with a summary. Chapter 4, Data Analysis, provides a systematic analysis of the data collected during the research. The data analysis starts with three sections to look at the data management prior to entry, the initial data analysis for suitability, and reliability for the different loadings. These sections are followed by the descriptive statistics and correlations. Following the correlation analysis, the regression analysis and hypothesis testing are reviewed and analyzed. The next three sections focus on providing both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the social network data. These include looking at the social network graphs for the pre-pilot event management project, and a mapping of the UTAUT responses to the social network graphs, and a review of the cluster analysis. The last section is a summary of the chapter. Chapter 5, Discussion, provides a discussion of the research results. First, the chapter discusses the overall study findings, which is followed by a discussion on what the results means to organizations. The next two sections discuss how the results fit with the theories underlying them as well as past IS research. Chapter 6, Conclusions, wraps up the study by providing a short summary of the research, its contribution to knowledge and practice, its limitations, and suggestions for future research.

1.5 Summary
This introduction chapter provided the background of the problem for this study, presented the research questions, discuss the study rationale, and provided an overview of the structure of the dissertation. In chapter 2, which is the literature review, it provides overview of the related theories, key constructs and significant prior research that provides the foundation that this research builds upon.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 26

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview and analysis of the related theories, key constructs and significant prior research that provides the context for the research problem which is the lack of understanding of how to better leverage social network analysis of the informal coping and influencing networks within an organization to better understand, monitor, predict, and improve the success and acceptance of new innovation or technology projects. The chapter has five sections. This introduction section provides an overview of the chapter and a brief overview of the significant constructs as well as timeline of the major research tracks that inform this research. Section 2.2 provides an overview of the significant literature around organizational innovation and the strength of weak ties on organizational innovation. This is then followed by section 2.3 which covers the individual diffusion of innovation and technology acceptance. Section 2.4 then provides an overview of the significant social network theories and constructs which include: the Hawthorne Studies, Structural Hole Theory, Social Capital, Simmelian Ties, Agent Based Modeling, and Social Network Analysis. Section 2.5 then focuses on the models that combine social network analysis and individual technology acceptance which include Model of Acceptance with Peer Support (MAPs) and Social Information Processing Model (SIP). Section 2.6 then reviews seven gaps in the prior literature that this research hopes to help start closing that relate to a lack of understanding of informal networks. This chapter is then concluded with a summary of the chapter. The scope of this research spans three macro areas of study, specifically social networks, organizational innovation, and individual technology acceptance. These and the surrounding key constructs are shown in figure 1, where the light green colored boxes show the scope relevant to this research, and the grey boxes are related constructs. The red circle shows the key constructs most used in this research. Innovation adoption and technology acceptance literature has evolved fairly independently of organizational innovation or social networks for much of its history, but the three have started to have significant overlap in the last 10 years. Figure 2 - Timeline of significant research & theories for technology adoption/acceptance and organizational/social networks. Organizational innovation and social networks have had significant overlap since the early Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1939). Social networks research evolved around graph theory and then gained deep understanding of these network structures such as the importance of weak ties, structural-hole positions, and the benefits of centrality. Organizational innovation or organizational culture research recognized the importance of social networks and leveraged constructs such as how the weak connections helped drive their own innovativeness. Innovation adoption and technology acceptance evolved in a more serial approach with significant milestones along the way which included Rogers Diffusion of Innovations research in 1957, Daviss Technology Acceptance Model in 1986, and Venkateshs Unified Theory of Technology Acceptance in 2003. The streams of research have started to overlap and leverage each other in more recent SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 27 research such as Model of Acceptance with Peer Support (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). These three streams of research are the focus of the majority of this literature review and the contributions of this research is focused on addressing gaps in bringing these two research streams together. In reviewing these three streams of research in this chapter, seven gaps are uncovered. These include gaining better understanding the dynamics of failed technology acceptance projects, looking at contingency acceptance of organizations and individuals in early stages of the initiatives, providing better explanatory models, understanding network heterogeneity, accounting for network dynamics, taking advantage of the richness in individual data, and understanding network dynamics over time. These seven groups are revisited and explained together in more detail in section 2.6 Gaps in the current knowledge or theory.

Legend
Radial personal network (innovativeness factor Valente & Forman 1998) Heterophilous Connections (innovation factor) Simmilian Ties/ Social Distance (Georg Simmel)

Organizational Innovation

Out of Scope

In Scope

Interlocking Networks Tie Strength Social Learning Theory (Bandura 1986)

Strength of Weak Ties Theory

Conditional Acceptance (organization & indivdual) Model of Acceptance with Peer Support (MAPS)

Social Information Processing Model (SIMP)

Structural Hole Theory

Social / Personal Networks

Social Network Analysis

Density Unified Theory of User Acceptance of Technology (UTUAT)

Individual Innovation & Technology Acceptance

Centrality Communication Proximity Network Theory Critical Mass Actor Network Theory Social Capital

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers) Innovation Decision Process Innovativeness and Adoptor Categories

Viral Marketing

Disaggregat e Modeling (individual) Aggregate Modeling (ie Bass)

Theory of Planned Behavior

Theory of Reasoned Action

Agent Based Modeling (Delre)

Figure 1 - Basic model of the different conceptual areas; leveraging constructs from technology acceptance, social networks, and organizational innovation. The light green boxes make up the foundation of this research. The red circle shows the key constructs

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 28

Figure 2 - Timeline of significant research & theories for technology adoption/acceptance and organizational/social networks

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 29

2.2 Organizational Innovation

2.2.1 Organizational Innovation & Adoption
The duality of organizational adoption and individual acceptance.
New system acceptance requires input at both the managerial or organizational level and the individual level. It is important to understand not only the end users beliefs, attitudes and intentions, but the management strategies, policies, and actions which have significant effect on the successful acceptance of a technology (Bhattacherjee 1998). For a technology supplier or driver of an innovation, the innovation acceptance is only successful when both the organization and the individuals accept the innovation and the targeted adopters demonstrate commitment by continuing to use the product over times (Bhattacherjee 1998; Rogers 2003). This is also widely researched from the product success perspective such as the research on factors of new product success by Montoya-Weiss and Calantone (Montoya-Weiss and Calantone 1994) which has shown that the factors that lead to product success are quite varied as well. Within the organization, the adoption is referred to as intra-organizational acceptance. If acceptance of individuals is contingent upon a prior organization adoption, its referred to as contingent innovation decision or forced adoption (Ram and Jung 1991; Rogers 2003). Forced adoption carries the added assumption of mandatory usage to the users after the company has made a decision to adopt a technology which has significant impacts on the individual adoption such as forcing the creation of a coping network to help cope with the new technology (Ram and Jung 1991). With Rogers terminology for diffusion of innovations, it is important to clarify that adoption refers to the decision of any individual or organization to make use of an innovation, whereas diffusion refers to the accumulated level of users of an innovation in a market (Rogers 2003). Researchers such as Bass focused on the larger aggregate modeling of diffusion, whereas Rogers focused more on innovation adoption (Wright, Upritchard et al. 1997). Overall, both organizational adoption and individual acceptance are heavily researched, and it is likely they overlap in the early phase of introducing a new technology in an organization such as pilot. When they overlap their interdependencies are not heavily researched even though key individuals in the organization might have influence on both the organizational adoption and individual acceptance of the larger user base.

Stages of organizational adoption

At a macro level, stages of organizational adoption are often referred to as Initiation and Implementation (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). During initiation, the organization becomes aware of the solution, forms an attitude towards it, and evaluates it. The decision for the organization to adopt the technology happens between these two stages. During implementation, SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 30 the organization has ideally made the decision to use the new technology and the focus turns to making it available and accepted by the end users (Zaltman, Duncan et al. 1973; Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). Frambach and Schillewaerts two stages for organizational adoption do not offer as much understanding of the process as one might gain from a more detailed process at the user acceptance level. For example, William McGuire suggests five stages for the individual levels as part of the Hierarchy of Effects, where a user must pass through five stages to get from knowledge to a behavior change; knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation (McGuire 1989; Rogers 2003). James Prochaska also suggested five stages of change for an innovation decision process which map fairly closely to McGuires which include pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparations, action, and maintenance (Prochaska, DiClemente et al. 1992; Rogers 2003). These individual adoption or acceptance stages are not usable at the organizational level because organizations have a different motivations or factors or objectives of using a technology. Meyer & Goes (Meyer and Goes 1988) proposed a 9 step process of organization decision-making stages in the assimilation of Medical Innovations which are grouped as Knowledge Awareness, Evaluation-Choice, and Adoption-Implementation stages(Meyer and Goes 1988). Knowledge-Awareness Stage 1. Apprehension. Individual organization members learn of an innovation's existence. 2. Consideration. Individuals consider the innovation's suitability for their organization. 3. Discussion. Individuals engage in conversations concerning adoption. Evaluation-Choice Stage 4. Acquisition proposal. Adoption of equipment embodying the innovation is proposed formally. 5. Medical-fiscal evaluation. The proposed investment is evaluated according to medical and financial criteria. 6. Political-strategic evaluation. The proposed investment is evaluated according to political and strategic criteria. Adoption-Implementation Stage 7. Trial. The equipment is purchased but still under trial evaluation. 8. Acceptance. The equipment becomes well accepted and frequently used. 9. Expansion. The equipment is expanded, upgraded, or replaced with a secondgeneration model. It is important to understand which stage a new technology is in because each stage could have different moderating effects of acceptance factors or organizational challanges. For example, Meyer and Goes showed that in later stages of innovation process, innovations were found to be lower risk, but more complex (Meyer and Goes 1988). Overall, these different phased frameworks for organizational adoption are helpful in understanding the serial process that an organization goes through, but they do not address that different decision

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 31 makers in the organization could be at different stages or explain the impacts of the connections and interactions between these decision makers.

Complexity of adoption at the organizational and individual level

Given the wide range of research, individual technology acceptance can be complex by itself, but then combining the complexities of organizational adoption makes it a quite daunting at an aggregate level. In Ram and Jungs research on forced adoption, they suggest that the organizational adoption of innovations is more complex than individual adoption because of factors such as the higher number of stages involved in the adoption decision, and the effects of organizational structure (Ram and Jung 1991). This complexity of combining organization and individual decisions often does not account for the longitudinal dynamics at different stages, non-adoption and dependencies between the two decisions, although Frambach and Schil lewaerts multi-level framework is attempts to address some of these shortcomings. The longitudinal nature and process of organizational and individual adoption is not widely understood, which adds additional layers of complexity. Most studies focus on dichotomous adoption/non-adoption process but we know little about the effect of different factors at the various stages (Olshavsky and Spreng 1996). In addition these studies also only include a few indirect factors and direct factors (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002) and limit the study to either the organizational adoption or individual acceptance level. Non-adoption within either of the organizational decision and individual acceptance is also a shortcoming in research. Research on both decisions primarily focus on adoption which avoids dealing with the complexities of non-adoption, with some exceptions such as Stevens et al.s research on the consumer voluntary setting on the non-adoption of ATMS (Stevens, Warren et al. 1989). In an organization there are significant dependencies between the two decision processes at both the organizational and individual level. For example the managers involved to the organizational decision process could have significant influence on the individual decision process by categorizing it, setting some of the evaluation criteria when comparing it to a previous technology, and clearly communicating some of its benefits and appropriate use (Olshavsky and Spreng 1996) Frambach and Schillewaerts 2002 research on organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research provided two levels of acceptance factors to address both the individual and organizational acceptance which are shown in Figure 3 Organizational Level Acceptance Factors from Frambach and Schillewaerts 2002 and Figure 4 Individual Acceptance Factors from Frambach and Schillewaert 2002 (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). This is a significant step that could help in the critical early phases where the organizational decision and individual decisions could still be in flux. One shortcoming of this model is that these two frameworks do not address the interdependencies between the two decision processes when they overlap or how the individual perceptions are directly impacted by their social connections to others.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 32

Figure 3 Organizational Level Acceptance Factors from Frambach and Schillewaerts 2002

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 33

Figure 4 Individual Acceptance Factors from Frambach and Schillewaert 2002

Important factors for organizational adoption

Organizational adoption is significantly different then user acceptance and the decision process could vary from organization to organization because different factors or technology attributes could be important to each. Anderson and Narus indicated that the factors that an organization considers when adopting an innovation are the perceived benefits and economic incentives and if they exceed that of alternatives (Anderson and Narus 1999; Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). The perceived net benefit affects the adoption rate for organizations (Robinson 1990). These perceived benefits can be interpreted differently for each organization. An example of this can be seen in the research by Mansfield on the diffusion of flexible manufacturing systems in Japan, Europe and the United States. In this research it was discovered that the United States adopted flexible manufacturing systems at a slower rate than other regions and one of the reasons cited was that often the US companies did not account for the improvements in quality as a significant benefit, whereas other regions did (Mansfield 1993). Organization characteristics also impact organizational adoption, such as organization size (Kennedy 1983), organization structure (Zaltman, Duncan et al. 1973), and organizational innovativeness (Morrison 1996). Organizational structure can either help or hinder innovation adoption. For example in a more formal and centralized organization, they are less likely to adopt an innovation, but they are better equipped to manage it if it is adopted (Zaltman, Duncan et al. 1973). The opposite holds true for specialized or highly complex organizations. Organizational Dispositional Innovativeness (ODI) and Leading Edge Status (LES) influence time to adoption. Supplier marketing SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 34 activity also drives adoption by organizations (Frambach, Barkema et al. 1998) as do the marketers choices on targeting the innovation, its communication, and activities to reduce the perceived risk (Easingwood and Beard 1989). Reducing the risk might include trial without purchase or the supplier absorbing the risk. By reducing the Implementation risk, financial risk and operational risk, the innovation adoption can be improved (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002) Several other important factors could also impact the organizational adoption. The higher the degree of interconnectedness and information sharing, the more likely organizations will be exposed to new ideas and products. Organizations also look for network externalities or critical mass (Markus 1990; Rogers 2003). Environmental or influences such as business partners in their network have used a system or competitive pressures. Some research has indicated that high levels of competition stimulate innovation adoption for organizations, which was operationalized by measuring the communication openness of industries (Gatignon and Robertson 1989). Clearly, there are many factors that drive organizational adoption and how an innovation is perceived, but the research of Markus, Gatignon, and Robertson start to suggest that ones network connections or communication openness help drive adoption of new innovations but are unable to show it directly.

2.2.2 Strength of Weak Ties

The strength of weak ties plays an important role as a construct in organizational innovation. Granovetters (Granovetter 1973) work focused on the importance of weak ties rather than the more researched strong ties to understand their cohesive power, their unique role of tying groups together across organizational boundaries. This underlying theory also focuses on using micro level network analysis with these weak ties to show their impact on macro level. This concept of a weak tie network brings a very hidden dimension of the network that is more sparse, non-visible, but plays a more important role when it comes to diffusion, communication, mobility, and general social cohesion that holds the overall structure together (Granovetter 1973). The verity of this research does ring true and does a good job using prior research to qualitatively check the assertions of the strength of weak ties by providing a sound background on what weak ties mean, prove some of the underlying concepts and assertions of weak ties, then bringing those forth and validating them in different contexts, and holds together well as foundational construct to add significant clarity at a broad scale to the structure of social graphs, which one would not see through strong ties. The following nine insights and concepts within the strength of weak ties help address this particular research study. First, sociometry is a quantitative method for measuring social relationships which is the precursor of network analysis with roots to researchers such as Jacob L. Moreno who used early social network graphs in his work as early as 1934 (Moreno 1934). One criticism for sociometry was its primary focus on smaller groups and lack of focus on structural issues with any theoretical detail (Granovetter 1973). Second, Granovetter defines the strength of a tie as quantitative method for measuring social relationships(Granovetter 1973). Ties can be strong, weak or absent, but there can be multiple SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 35 contexts or modes of a relationship as show in Sykes et al.s work on influencing and coping modes of networks (Granovetter 1973; Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009) Third, a strong or weak ties not only tells you something about the compatibility of two actors, A & B, it also indicates a likelihood of compatibility of others who might already have a connection to B, that they would more likely to be compatible if they met (Granovetter 1973). Fourth, Cognitive balance (Newcomb 1961) suggests that if strong ties exist between A & B and A & C, it would be expected that if B&C started interacting, it would be expected that it would be a positive interaction, or else it would introduce a "psychological strain" into the triad (Newcomb 1961; Granovetter 1973), but this is less crucial for weak ties, so the constraints on their neighbors are reduced based on the relations. Fifth, bridges are weak ties between two networks and happen less frequently, essentially its when A&B have strong ties, A&C have strong ties, but B&C do not have a tie. This happens rarely in larger networks. As people know each other longer, there is an increased occurrence of triads with three strong reciprocated ties. When bridges are removed, they impact the diffusion of information more than other nodes(Granovetter 1973). Sixth, there is a critical distance along a network where it is not feasible to communicate due to distortion within each transmission (Harary 1965; Granovetter 1973) So transmission are limited to n-degrees, so connections or "local bridges" of shorter n-degrees play an important role in communication processing although they are not a "bridge" to the earlier definition by being the only path. Seventh, when collecting the dyad or network connections from individuals, a researcher can provide a list of individuals or take an open question approach. By taking an open question approach to the naming of other individuals in the social network questions in trying to identify the coping and influencing networks, it is hoped to identify more of the weak connections between the network nodes which often are not identified with using a more limited list of participants which are often strong ties (Granovetter 1973). Eighth, by monitoring the time of adoption or acceptance by those individuals within a network, the path of acceptance can be inferred (Granovetter 1973). Lastly, often early innovators "under-conform" to social norms so they are often marginal not central to the network. In Coleman et als study on publish health innovations, it was found that central figures lead in the adoption more often when it was safe and uncontroversial, otherwise noncentral actors might champion or lead the initial adoption of a higher risk technology(Coleman, Katz et al. 1966). In this study its suggested that central figures desire to protect their reputation(Granovetter 1973) This would suggest that a controversial innovation will start with the innovative marginal resources with few weak ties and likely stay within a few cliques, but those that are less risky will expand and diffuse thought the central figures quickly. Overall, weak ties are the lattice that ties together the larger network, which was quantitatively shown based on a study by Raporort and Horvath (Rapoport and Horvath 1961; Granovetter 1973) of high school students, more people could be reached through the weak ties then the strong ties in terms of friendships. Weak ties hold together the larger social structure. SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 36

2.3 Diffusion of Innovations and Technology Acceptance

Individual acceptance or adoption of technology has also become a more important research area after organizational adoption. As users are enabled to accomplish more through technology then before, which Kantor refers to as the democrazation of IT, this new functionality to accomplish more tasks has added complexity (Kanter 2000). Its quite common for companies to spend many times as much on implementing software as they do in buying it (Kanter 2000).

2.3.1 Technology Acceptance Model

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is the more predominant theory that is currently used for the adoption or acceptance of new technologies. Its origin can be traced back to Daviss 1986 thesis work (Davis 1986) where he looked to find out What are the major motivational variables that mediate between system characteristics and actual use of computer-based systems end-users in organizational settings?" (Davis 1986). Davis heavily relied on the earlier works of Fishbeins in the 1960s and 1970s on attitudes and motivational aspects of behaviors. TAMs conceptual models vary substantially but usually are based on the independent variables of subjective norm, perceived ease of use, and perceived usability, which drive the behavioral intention of the potential technology users. As the TAM models mature and evolve, some more recent research is bringing in other independent variables and giving more direct managerial guidelines such as Limayems work on How Habit Limits the Predictive Power of Intention: The Case of Information Systems Continuance (Limayem, Hirt et al. 2007) Another common area of evolution and research of the Technology Acceptance Model is around the explanatory power of technology acceptance. Sun and Zhangs research on The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance (Sun and Zhang 2005) exposes the limitations of explanatory powers and the inconsistencies between prior studies as well as highlights the moderating factors that account for both the limitations of the explanatory power and the inconsistencies. Sun highlights that existing studies account for less than 60% of variance explained, especially those using field studies with professional users. The explanatory power of field studies is less than 40%. In this research subjective norm is a network variable. The impact of the social influence on behavioral intentions has several significant findings. Prior research by Davis and Bagozzi (Davis and Bagozzi 1989) and Mathieson(Mathieson 1991) found no significant direct effects, but Venkatesh and Davis(Venkatesh and Davis 2000) showed both direct and indirect effects of social norms. For example the subjective norm factor increases dramatically from .05-.06 to .20-.25 from voluntary to mandatory settings, which is the more common situation in organizational technology acceptance(Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003). This is also consistent with previous research on critical mass. Critical mass has long been a driver of technologies where the utility increases with increased users, such as communications technologies (Markus 1990; Katz and Shapiro 1994; Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). Its important for a critical mass within a persons reference or work group which motivates the user to imitate the action (Kraut, Rice et al. 1998).

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 37 A more recent milestone in the evolution of TAM was Venkateshs research on User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View where he reviews and combines 8 models into the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003). This is a significant step in technology acceptance research due to its attempt at unifying existing models, reviewing the scales for each dependent variable, and leveraging two rounds of empirical data to show the variations in the explanatory power of the moderating variables. The UTAUT was used as a foundation in this research because of its maturity and acceptance. In addition to the more common factors of Performance Expectancy and Effort Expectancy which has been a common thread in most user acceptance and innovation adoption, the UTUAT has put additional focus on the Facilitating Conditions and Social Norm. The facilitating conditions could include such as training and education (Igbaria 1993), organizational technical support (Davis and Bagozzi 1989) and incentives and control structures (Bhattacherjee 1998)

Figure 5 - Conceptual Model proposed for Traditional Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

TAM has been the predominant model for technology acceptance in the last 10-20 years, yet the social influence still has mixed results in terms of its significance. This is why this research attempts to use TAM and Social Network Analysis of the Influencing and Coping network to triangulate and better understand technology acceptance.

2.3.2 Diffusion of Innovations

Prior to the gradual emergence of TAM in the 90s, Diffusion of Innovations had been the predominant research framework for the acceptance and adoption of technologies or innovations. The most widely known expert is Everett Rogers who has made substantial contributions including books such as Attributes of Innovations and Their Rate of Adoption (Rogers 2003) and the Diffusion of Innovations originally published in 1962 which is now in its fifth edition (Rogers 2003). The SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 38 Diffusion of Innovations has provided a foundation as a predecessor and alternative model to the Technology Acceptance Model as well and is still a widely used framework in its initial form in the adoption of new innovations. For example Ko and Kim has recently used it to identify the status of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) adoption and explore the influence of organizational characteristics on the CRM adoption process in the Korean fashion industry (Ko, Kim et al. 2007). With Rogers terminology for diffusion of innovations, adoption refers to the decision of any individual or organization to make use of an innovation, whereas diffusion refers to the accumulated level of users of an innovation in a market (Rogers 2003) The Diffusion of Innovations conceptual models have slight variations, but primarily focus on various moderating factors and the independent variables of observability, trialability, compatibility, complexity, and relative advantage. Overall this is a nice complement to TAM in situations where a researcher might be looking to understand the organizational adoption or where the innovation is not technology specific, such as wellness or organic farming. A significant limitation to the Diffusion of Innovation is its lack of understanding or recognizing network impacts or how individuals or organizations could be influenced by their colleagues or other connections.

2.3.3 Personal Innovativeness

Personal Innovativeness is an important area of research by itself, as it varies between people. There are several key findings around Personal Innovativeness that could have network contexts or add to the understanding of the coping or influencing networks within an organization. When implementing new technologies to smaller groups of individuals, organizations want to target the most innovative people. This criticality of personal innovativeness on the success of new innovation adoption supports the importance of creating an environment that rewards innovativeness and risk taking (Agarwal and Prasad 1998). For systems that need to be implemented by the entire organization, its important to spend more time at the earlier stages to understand the patterns and flows that are compatible with the less innovative individuals, which would suggest joint application development or prototyping to better elicit preferences (Agarwal and Prasad 1998). This is essentially a socio-technical approach to system design (Mumford and Henshall 1979) When investing time to improve the acceptance of technologies to those who are less innovative, you should focus on developing approaches to improve relative advantage first since it is a significantly larger factor then ease of use (Agarwal and Prasad 1998). Overall, Personal Innovativeness could help add to our understanding of why certain people frequently tend to have central network roles in bringing in new technologies. Ibarra suggests that network centrality mediates the involvement in innovations (Ibarra 1993), meaning that more central figures more often have roles in innovation projects in companies.

2.4 Social Network Analysis

In this section we cover the significant research areas of social networks and social network analysis that are relevant to this research. For this discussion, the significant research areas are divided into

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 39 8 areas; the origins of organizational science, network theory, structural hole theory, social capital, Simmilian ties, centrality, and agent-based modeling. Before discussing the research, its important to understand potential limitations. First, networks themselves are embedded in larger contexts (Granovetter 1985; Brass, Galaskiewicz et al. 2004). For example, mergers and acquisitions are environmental jolts that can have significant impacts on the informal coping networks (Danowski and Edison-Swift 1985; Brass, Galaskiewicz et al. 2004), this is also true for downsizing (Shah 2000). Second, Networks have been shown to be made up with actors that have significant similarity or homophily as individuals tend to interact with others depending on how similar they are to themselves (Mehra, Kilduff et al. 1998; Brass, Galaskiewicz et al. 2004). This might be an underlying cause of clustering of perceptions by neighboring actors. Third, networks often shadow the physical proximity to others (Borgatti and Cross 2003). Lastly, attitude formation and change occur primarily through interaction with others, so as people cope or try to make sense of something they compare their perceptions with those they interact with (Erickson 1988).

2.4.1 Organizational Sciences Hawthorne Studies

Social Networks had their origin within organizational science dating back to the 1920s when Harvard Business School started a 10 year series of anthropological investigations at the Hawthorne Works Factory of Western Electric in Chicago. This was the first time Sociographs were used to diagram the social interactions (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1939; Kilduff and Tsai 2003). This is essentially a great analysis of the significance of cliques which was observed through the gameplaying and friendship networks of 14 workers. These 14 workers in a bank wiring room essentially were aligned to either the "front of the room" or "back of the room" groups or cliques. The groups appeared to be organized by their location, which cut across job titles, but it was found that each group established their own social norms which they conformed to such as snack preferences, work behavior, and productivity (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1939; Kilduff and Tsai 2003). The Hawthorne studies were also a good example on Cognitive Network Theory, which is the perception of how one perceives the network. Cognitive Accuracy is how close that individual's perception is close to reality (Kilduff and Tsai 2003). This was also seen in the early Hawthorne studies where management would act incorrectly without knowing the true workgroup positions which would create negative sentiments and unexpected consequences (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1939; Kilduff and Tsai 2003). The Hawthorne studies opened up many questions for organizational researchers in terms of culture, norms, and workplace behaviors. This is essentially a post-structuralism approach where the goal is not to find the statistical significance or search for the ideal quantifiable model, but instead to find meaning and open up new questions (Borgatti, Everett et al. 2002; Kilduff and Tsai 2003). In the case of technology acceptance studies using social network analysis, we should consider this post-structuralism approach to help uncover new knowledge about how perceptions and networks are formed in this very dynamic and confusing environment of conditional acceptance of technologies within organizations SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 40 The early foundation of organizational science and the importance of groups in understanding the norms and behaviors of employees as far back as the Hawthorne studies have significant relevance and insight to introducing new innovations or technologies into organizations today.

2.4.2 Network Theory

Network Theory is often challenged debating if its a theory at all, but rather a set of descriptive approaches or methodologies (Borgatti, Mehra et al. 2009). Regardless of ones perspective, networks and their structural analysis continue to bring more insight to managerial and research contexts. This can be seen in organizational innovation or how new products or innovations are promoted through these informal networks. Social Network Theory brings in the concept of social capital and the impact of social networks on innovations both within and between organizations. Petrakos and Olsons research on How interfirm collaboration benefits IT innovation highlights that performance and behavior of a firm due to innovation can be better understood through analyzing the network. This research is an important tie between the impacts of innovation and the social network of individuals in an organization (Patrakosol and Olson 2007). Social network theory also overlaps into the idea of viral marketing as an effective channel for marketing innovations and new technologies. Leskovec presents a model that successfully identifies communities, product, and pricing categories for which viral marketing seems to show how the networks involved in viral marketing create a recommendation network. This research also discusses the structure of viral network which can be driven by an internet community for a profession or geography more than some of the basic demographics (Leskovec, Adamic et al. 2007). Overall, social network analysis or network theory provides a means to understand the structure and channels of communications that enable individuals to cope and be influenced by their colleagues and other connections regarding new innovations or technologies.

2.4.4 Structural Hole Theory

Structural Hole Theory effectively originated in 1992 from the work of Ronald S. Burt with his book on Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Burt 1992). The theory is based on industry research on supply chains where it was observed that individuals with many connections in a competitive supplier/distributor/consumer network gain a financial competitive advantage through their network and the position of his contacts. This advantage is manifested through better information and control of the interactions (Burt 1992). From a social network view, structural-hole positions in a network are the individuals (or players) that connect two different groups. This allows them to potentially benefit from a more heterogeneous flow of information from multiple network groups and potentially have more control of information or influence within the larger network (Burt 1992). In Burts work, the competitive advantage from information and control allowed the individual to have insight into more business opportunities than others and are able to exert more influence or control of the network through the connections and positions of their contacts. This competitive advantage then allowed them to enjoy a higher rate of return on their investments (Burt 1992). SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 41 As the influence and control on the network shifts from producers to these suppliers and customers that fill structural-hole positions, the profit also shifted to them. Leveraging these structural hole positions was not done for the majority of the transactions, but instead was used for the big transactions because the bulk of business is within a few transactions (Burt 1992). This could have relevance on individuals during either the organizational or individual acceptance of a technology, where someone filling a structural-hole position might only leverage this position for a select few decisions. For the benefits of the Structural Hole Theory to hold as an autonomous model, three points need to hold true. First control is via exclusive access to ties that other players do not have similar access to the networks and information. Second, the structural autonomy is non-linear function of constraint that decreases most rapidly with the loss of structural holes, so these are the relationships that are most important. Third, it should be difficult for competition to get inside of the boundary, or gain access to these positions. This can also be translated to Technology Acceptance because organizations can be highly political and often do not offer the same level of benefits to all users within an organization; for example a new system to ease time reporting for a call center could add work for the finance group. Knowing this, if a finance employee was occupying a structural-hole position they use have significant influence on the organizational or individual acceptance. The structural hole theory and the impact of structural holes is similar at both the micro (individual) & macro (organizational) levels (Burt 1992). This parallels the duality of technology acceptance which has challenges at both the organizational and individual level (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). This research also makes many other steps forward in social network positions that are relevant to general organizational and individual performance could help interpret the coping and influencing networks within an organization. Managers filling many structural-hole positions get promoted faster. Structural-hole effects are most evident working on social frontiers where two worlds meet. This could be where entrepreneurial wits are needed as opposed to homogeneous worlds (Burt 1992). The benefits of occupying structural holes are more important for remote offices and to new mangers that have been at the company for less than 3-4 years (Burt 1992). Higher level positions in an organization mean that leaders will often be between the frontier boundary of an employer protected by the firm and a leader responsible for the firm. The social frontier into the top leadership is the most significant boundary to bridge in an organization. This research also supports the importance of a strong mentor or strategic partner in the organization for individual success. The earliest promotions come to those who have a strong strategic partner who is a non-boss. This strategic partner allows the individual to leverage the network and structural hole positions of the strategic partner as well, essentially they are using a borrowed network (Burt 1992). It is good if the strategic partner is not a boss which reduces the possibility of the relationship going sour. This relationship can also be leveraged for negotiation if there's a disagreement with the individuals boss and the strategic partner is a more compelling reference for the individual (Burt 1992). This also potentially parallels technology acceptance within an organization because if a new technology does not have a good strategic partner or sponsor, it has less likelihood of being successful. SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 42 Overall, structural hole theory has a rich set of ideas when it comes to performing a structural analysis of informal networks within an organization, especially when it comes to new innovations or technologies that are somewhat controversial within an organization.

2.4.5 Social Capital

Social Capital is a broad concept that means many things to many people (Narayan and L. 1997) and the research has been growing over the last three decades in the fields of organizations, families, youth behavior, education, public health, community, governance, economic development, intellectual capital, and collective action in general (Adler and Kwon 2002). Within Organizations, social capital has been researched for career success, finding jobs, product, team effectiveness, turnover rates, and supplier relationships innovation (Gabbay and Zuckerman 1998; Tsai and Ghoshal 1998). Adler and Kwon reviewed the existing social capital research from different fields to propose a conceptual framework that identifies the sources, benefits, risks and contingencies to help clarify and improve the utility of social capital. This conceptual framework contributes to the understanding of social capital by bridging domain fields and many different perspectives of social capital research which is shown in Figure 6 Social Capital Framework Propose by Adler and Know 2002. One challenge is defining social capital; Adler and Know reviewed 23 definitions of Social Capital from previous research that spanned from internally focused, neutral, or externally focused sources of social capital. Given these various perspectives from previous research and the characteristics of Social Capital, Adler and Know proposed the following definition: "Social Capital is the goodwill available to individuals or groups. Its source lies in the structure and content of the actor's social relations. Its effects flow from the information, influence, and solidarity it makes available to the actor."(Adler and Kwon 2002) Relative to technology acceptance, this study explains the solidarity side of social capital that could impact acceptance of new technologies due to intergroup loyalty, strong bonds, and the development of shared norms. It fits within the context of other research in how it ties into social network constructs such as strong or weak ties. Social Capital is categorized within three dimensions of social structure; market relationships where products & services are exchanged, hierarchical relations where authority is exchanged for materials or spiritual security, and social relations where favors and gifts are exchanged (Adler and Kwon 2002). According to Adler and Know, Social Capital is characterized by seven attributes. First its a longlived asset which resources can be invested either externally or internally and has the expectation of a future flow of benefits. These benefits could be access to information, power, solidarity, collective identity, or capacity for collective action. Second social capital can also be converted, such as using friendship capital to get a job. Third, it can compensate or replace other resources, such as minimizing transaction costs. Forth, it requires maintenance. Fifth, it can be a collective good, which benefits everyone or a group such as collective bargaining. Sixth, it is located within relationships SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 43 are not owned by only one individual. Lastly, its investments and benefits are difficult to measure (Adler and Kwon 2002). Group solidarity as an outcome of social capital could have a significant impact on technology acceptance networks. If networks where highly connected it facilitates the emergence of effective norms and maintains trustworthiness of others, and in turn increasing social capital as a group (Coleman 1988). These strong ties and solidarity could also limit the inflow of new ideas into the group (Gargiulo and Bernassi 1999; Adler and Kwon 2002). Alternatively if the network was less connected it would be a less trustworthy and violations of norms will be less visible and not punished (Coleman 1988), thus weakening social capital. There is also a risk that those individuals who have roles of bridging groups as a focal actor could limit the information flow into the group even though they individually have significant social capital (Gabbay and Zuckerman 1998; Adler and Kwon 2002). A group with strong internal bonds and weak external bonds will have high social capital, but will inhibit new ideas. This is suggesting that in an organizational change or technology acceptance initiative, a group with high solidarity could hinder the acceptance if it doesnt benefit them (Krackhardt and Stern 1988; Adler and Kwon 2002). Alternatively a group with weak internal bonds, but strong external bonds, there is little solidarity or social capital and minimizing the likelihood of collective norms (Adler 02).

Figure 6 Social Capital Framework Propose by Adler and Know 2002

Related to our research problem, where we are trying to gain understanding of the influencing and coping networks within an organization, the construct of social capital is important to understand when understanding how tightly connected groups either help or discourage a new innovation at either the organizational or individual level.

2.4.6 Simmelian Ties

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 44 Simmelian ties, similar to structural holes, isolates, or cliques are roles that are identified through social network analysis. A Simmelian tie is defined as two people who are reciprocally and strongly tie to each other and both people are reciprocally and strongly tie to at least one third party in common (Krackhardt 1999). This definition might look like a 3-person clique. Krackhardts study suggests that occupying the bridging role is not always advantageous and can be more constraining because of Simmelian Ties. Simmel suggested that social triads are fundamentally different then dyads (Krackhardt 1999). First, dyads preserve the individuality of both players and can't be out-voted. Second, within a dyad an individual has more bargaining power, they can leave, but it doesn't dissolve the group. Third, conflict is better managed in a triad, unlike in a dyad where the positions could become very polar; the presence of the third party is very moderating. There is little difference between a triad and larger cliques, but there is a dramatic difference between a dyad and triad (Burt 1992; Krackhardt 1999). Within the context of innovation adoption or acceptance of technologies within an organization, if there is conflict on whether to accept new technology, these triads could create significant influence on the organizational and individual decision process. People are constrained not just by their role but also the rules that govern how a role set should act (Krackhardt 1999), these would be the structurally equivalent people. A bridging person between two cliques is then constrained by the sets of norms in both groups. If these two cliques have different perceptions or benefits/impacts of using a new technology, this puts the bridging person in a difficult situation. Essentially the more cliques a person is embedded into, the more constrained they are. A tertius is someone who takes advantage of what two different actors know and can make deals independently with each group without the other knowing. If a person in a Simmilian tie changes his/her behavior to a private behavior, they are less constrained (Burt 1992; Krackhardt 1999), which could explain why a person might not speak up against an innovation during a large meeting, but will in one on one conversations. Simmilian ties are an important structural role when it comes to organizations and innovations, although not strongly researched for technology acceptance or innovation adoption. Krackhardt introduces several key learnings within the context of a union vote within an organization in researching Simmilian Ties in his work; the Ties that Torture (Krackhardt 1999). One could consider a union vote as an important innovation within an organization that requires organizational acceptance and individual acceptance similar to new technologies. The strength of this research is that it describes an organizational situation using the union vote context and the difficulties of trying to satisfy the norms of multiple groups. For an individual this situation stressful and close to impossible in satisfy with the individuals public behaviors (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). In the union vote one of the most central figures, Chris, was tightly tied to cliques that had polar opposite opinions of the union vote; the management and employees. The difficult situation left him no choice but to quit 10 days before the vote and rejoined 2 days later. He had power, but was constrained publically to use it (Burt 1992). It is important to address this role and discuss the importance of the private/public behavior differences in organizations going through change such as new innovations or technologies.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 45

2.4.7 Centrality
The concept of centrality is a frequently used social network metric on individuals or networks relative to their position or network structure. Informal structure has been shown to be more important than the organizational formal hierarchy, especially when multiple network boundaries need to be spanned and innovations are a source of power (Ibarra 1993). It is most commonly used to understand the most important actors and distribution of power or influence in a network. For innovations or new technologies, there are several areas of centrality research that would benefit the structural analysis of the informal coping and influencing networks. A network itself that is centralized has a highly central actor around which peripheral actors collect around (Borgatti 2002). This centralization is essentially a network-level measure that reflects the variability scores among unit (Marsden 1990). Three common measures of centrality are betweenness centrality which measures the control or the capacity to interrupt communication, closeness centrality measures reflect freedom from control of others, and degree centrality which is a measure that reflects a network size focus on the level of communication activity (Freeman 1979). Innovations propagate in networks as information so betweenness centrality is most commonly used for control of information in networks regarding change or new innovations. Centrality of individuals in networks has been shown to have many benefits. With higher levels of centrality an individual has a larger base of potential power which they can use to affect outcomes if they choose (Salancik and Pfeffer 1977; Mintzberg 1983; Ibarra 1993). These individuals also have an increased sense of a systems power distribution and political landscape (Freeman, Romney et al. 1987; Ibarra 1993). Similar to social capital and occupying structural holes, one's power also depends on who you are linked to (Brass 1984), and ties beyond your own workgroups has shown to increase one's influence as well. Looking at innovation adoption specifically, Ibarra also suggests that network centrality mediates the involvement in innovations (Ibarra 1993), meaning that central figures more often have roles in innovation projects in companies. This centrality helps get innovations approved and implemented. Kanter uses a term called innovation power tools which refers to three sets of resources that help drive innovations; information, resources, and support (Kanter 1988). Overall centrality has been used to help understand many research areas such as innovation, control, power, or influence. It has significant overlap with the other network constructs of social capital, Simmilian ties, and structural-hole theory because they all focus on central or bridging positions within a network. Its role with innovation is also discussed in the later section on Model of Acceptance and Peer Support. As a quantifiable measure, centrality is important and tempting to focus our resources on new innovations only to those with high centrality, but there are limitations to heavily relying on centrality to draw conclusions regarding innovation or technology acceptance without context. The largest concern is that researchers need to understand the underlying meaning or actors perceptions regarding the innovation or new technology. If a researcher cannot clearly see the network structural inhibitors to a new technology or convert results in to actionable recommendations how

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 46 to improve the acceptance of a new technology within a network, then they might not be close enough to the details and relying too heavily on centrality or other quantifiable metric.

2.4.8 Agent-Based Modeling

A related approach to social network modeling is agent-based modeling. Janssen and Ostrom describe Agent-based modeling as the computational study of social agents as evolving systems of autonomous interacting agents. It also is frequently been used as a quantitative methodology for social science research (Janssen and Ostrom 2006) . ABM has been used to simulate the efficacy of different promotional strategies that support the launch of products. It could be used as an alternative or in conjunction with to social network analysis to operationalize the interactions of a network via its mathematical structure of its utility equations, and potential of providing explanatory power at both the micro and macro level from a single model. Delres research on Targeting and timing promotional activities: An agent-based model for the takeoff of new products (Delre, Jager et al. 2007), effectively utilizes agent-based-modeling in promotional planning, optimal targeting strategy, and the study of both micro and macro dynamics systematically. It provides a basic framework for simulation of take-off strategies for new products into a network of consumers and their individual decisions. This is in contrast to more traditional research approaches that tend to focus less on market determinants, such as consumers' preferences and social factors because they are more difficult to measure (Delre, Jager et al. 2007). The combination of these consumer attributes and ABM approach further enable the explanatory power of comparing different technology acceptance take-off strategies into networks of interconnected groups. In this research it demonstrated the benefits of targeting small cohesive groups of consumers in distant areas of the market as the optimal strategy which was referred to as throwing rocks rather than gravel (Delre, Jager et al. 2007). ABM is a promising approach to simulate a promotional approach and the technology acceptance of a new technology into a network if we know how the end users are connected and how they are influenced by the network. Alternatively Social Network Analysis or modeling would be a more promising approach if we are trying to gain understanding how individual are influenced by the network.

2.5 Technology Acceptance Integrating Social Network Analysis

2.5.1 Model of Acceptance with Peer Support
The Model of Acceptance with Peer Support (MAPS) was a significant recent research step that combined belief-based Technology Acceptance Model, organizational innovation, and Social Network tools. This was introduced in the 2009 work of Tracy Sykes, Viswanath Venkatesh, and Sanjay Gosain described in the Journal article titled Model of Acceptance with Peer Support: A Social Network Perspective to Understand Employee System Use. Its purpose was to develop a model of system use, accounting for the coping network, influencing network, and the individual-level technology adoption research as shown in Figure 7 - Model used in Sykes et al. 2009. It SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 47 incorporated these key social network constructs then empirically validated the proposed model in a field study where it benchmarked the model against an intention-based model of individual-level adoption and use.

Figure 7 - Model used in Sykes et al. 2009

Two key calculations used are network density and network centrality. Network density describes the connectedness of a network which is the actual number of ties in a network as a proportion of the maximum possible number of ties. Network centrality was defined as the extent of an individual involvement in assistance exchanges with coworkers (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). This focus on the central resources is consistent with other research which has shown that for successful diffusion of a new technology, it is important to form positive impressions to central actors of a social network (Burt 1987; Papa 1988; Lee, Cho et al. 2003) Network Density was further evolved to Valued Network Density which is the connectedness of an employee to others, weighted by the perceived strength of the tie and the neighbors control of system-related information, knowledge, and other resources needed for effective system use (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). The two concepts of coping (knowledge sharing) and influencing (changing system) network modes can be viewed via social network tools as two independent sets of connections and networks. The resources and help within the networks are typically unavailable to those on the periphery with longer pathways or isolated from the network altogether (Ibarra and Andrews 1993; Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009).

This influencing network is generally used to access individuals that have information, knowledge, and other resources regarding the new technology or innovation. Those that are perceived to have access to these resources are in central structural positions in the influencing network and will have more influence over system design to meet their needs. This process of influencing a technology to

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 48 meet your needs is often labeled as co-adoption, which also drives up the usage of those involved in the co-adoption. Alternatively, the coping network is used to help users to cope with the change. This could include all thoughts and behaviors performed by a person in order to manage (minimize, reduce, master, tolerate) demands emanating from a specific change in the person-environment relationship (Lazarus 1966). Coping theory is used to predict the behavior of individuals facing disruptive events (Lazarus 1966) and has two major functions: the management of the problem and regulation of emotion (Beaudry and Pinsonneault 2001). Problem-focused acts are oriented at changing the environment that is impacting the person (Lazarus and Folkman 1984; Beaudry and Pinsonneault 2001). Emotion-focused acts are directed at internally changing aspiration, learning new skills, adjusting behaviors, and others (Beaudry and Pinsonneault 2001). People use both types of copying in the most stressful situations, although men might use more problem focused coping in a work environment (Folkman and Lazarus 1980) (Folkman and Lazarus 1985; Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). The sample size of this research was 87, where the social network data was collected using a rosterbased sociometric approach employing a fixed contact roster and asks respondents to describe their relationships. It employed a "help network matrix" to determine extent of help-seeking and helpgiving, which is important because the different network modes. The different network modes allowed the research to uncover the different central roles in the network. A participant can be central to a help network, but have little access to system resources or control information. The five modes used here are get help, give help, knowledge, resources, and information. This approach has the benefit of capturing more of the potential connections between the identified participants, but also does not allow for identifying potential connections that are not part of the study. The leadership that interacted with the researchers was not included in the study in order to avoid bias, but removing the leadership from the network does remove a potentially significant sector of individuals that could have significant influence over facilitating conditions or could have central roles as well. (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009) The research showed that the social network constructs are a significant factor in the variance of acceptance in organizations and helps get to a higher R^2 then just facilitating conditions. Similar to many studies using social networks, the sample size was relatively modest with 87 employees in one business unit in an organization. Based on the research, the behavioral intention or system-use was shown to increase with network centrality, so actors who are centrally located within organizational networks enjoy a broad array of benefits and opportunities (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009).

New technologies systems can also be viewed a disruptive event (Beaudry and Pinsonneault 2001) and MAPS attempts to understand the influencing and coping network impacts on system usage with some success. Since this is a relatively new research area with limited examples of the dynamics within the influencing and coping networks within the context of a new technology acceptance initiative, this research would benefit from an exploratory look into a more detailed structural analysis review of the connections and the context of the connections.

2.5.2 Social Information Processing Model (SIPM)

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 49 Similar to MAPS, Social Information Processing (SIPM) was a model developed to help address the social influences in technology acceptance. SIPM was originally developed because attitudes and use of technology was being shown to be influenced by much more then objective characteristics of the system or extent of use and user preferences; instead it was being influenced by culture, norms, and social context (Lee, Cho et al. 2003). This model was originally proposed by Salancik and Pfeffer in 1978. In this earlier research the individual perceptions were shown to be influenced by the people they interacted with via opinions, information, and behaviors (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978; Hossain and Silva 2009). A more recent example of its use was by Lee et al. on Technology Acceptance and Social Networking in Distance Learning (Lee, Cho et al. 2003). A combined model from the research is shown in Figure 8 Combined TAM and SIPM model from Lee et al. 2003. In this study the researchers used TAM to determine attitude foundation for use of integrated communication and engineering design tools in a distributed learning environment, then used SIPM with social network analysis to see how attitudes changed over time. Using the social network analysis via UCINET (Borgatti, Everett et al. 2002), the researchers found that the students attitude change was significantly influence by other students attitude changes. This model used performance expectation (individuals performance gains) and social expectation (social and entertainment experiences) as antecedents of perceived usability and perceived ease of use. The social influence was calculated as the product of the neighboring nodes sum (attitude of change) and the communication frequency. (Lee, Cho et al. 2003) Unlike the use of betweenness centrality as the best measure of information flow in technology acceptance (Brandes, Kenis et al. 2006; Lerner 2009) , this research used degree centrality which is a measure of the frequencies of (incoming/outgoing) communications with others. This was used assuming that when an actor has a high degree centrality, the actor is an opinion leader or other significant role in the network (Lee, Cho et al. 2003).

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 50

Figure 8 - Combined TAM and SIPM model from Lee et al. 2003

This research also used UCINET to the calculate Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP) and other correlations of inter-network comparisons, which is an appropriate alternative to parametric modeling knowing that network data does not hold up to the independent measurement assumptions. A more detailed explanation of this usage can be found in the research (Lee, Cho et al. 2003) QAP calculates Pearson's correlation coefficient and simple matching coefficient between two corresponding matrices many times over to determine if an association between the two networks is statistically significant. In this case they compared social networks at different times to see how attitudes changed over time. The ability of social network tools like UCINET to run an autocorrelation to determine if a network can be divided by attributes is valuable for understanding technology acceptances when it comes to understanding social networks with smaller sample sizes. The sample size of the research was relatively modest with 31 students in two universities. Interestingly, the research used two classes at different universities as the context, which originally looked like two large sub-networks, but they appeared to start to merge as the students started to work together as the semester continued. The QAP showed that their correlation was small (.18) so many of their independent characteristics stayed the same, even though it looked like their networks were merging. This research and its attempt at accounting for the social network calculated values as an antecedent of Perceive Ease of Use as well as longitudinally watching the network overtime showed that the rigorous analysis using social network tools over time is a has significant utility for researchers and practitioners on technology acceptance in the future.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 51

2.5.3 Tie Strength

Strong and weak ties are both important, but play different roles regarding innovation and new technologies. Strong ties represent more frequent interaction and extensive interaction between two individuals that are reciprocated, and have emotional closeness. Weak ties represent infrequent contact, lack of emotional closeness, and not necessarily reciprocal. In addition to the tie strength research related to SIPM in the previous section, tie strength and technology acceptance have been combined in research problems by evaluating both strong and weak ties, personal consequences, and conformity. Hossain and Silva recently evaluated strong and weak ties the possibility for extending TAM to incorporate the influence of the different types of social ties as a new theoretical construct. The research looked at the adoption of a virtual community (Community Capacity Building Network), in a mandatory context with independent factors of both strong and weak ties. Their research showed that strong ties influence attitude towards use, behavioral intention, and actual usage, but it was unclear on the magnitude of these relationships and their impact on improving the adjusted R2 for explaining the variance of behavioral intention or actual usage (Hossain and Silva 2009). Wejnert has also suggested that different tie strengths are more appropriate depending on the consequences of an innovation. Innovations that have public consequences such as a new management style would be propagated through weak connections such as professional organizations. Alternatively, an innovation with private consequences such as fertility control methods would likely propagates through strong ties and requires frequent face-to-face h interaction. (Wejnert 2002; Hossain and Silva 2009) Lastly, strong ties can also drive conformity which includes conformity of adoption of technologies or innovations. Strong ties in a network impose great demand for conformity and individuals are expected to heed the advice of these strong tie neighbors. This is also influenced by the content of these relationships, essentially if one individual adopts a new technology, then it is more likely that others will. It also means that conformity to not adopt is an individuals neighbors are not conforming (Ruef 2002; Hossain and Silva 2009). Structural equivalence & similar social ties has also been shown to put pressure to conform or adopt an innovation because structural equivalent actors experience the same social structure and standards and model their behavior after their neighbors and those that have similar social structures. These interactions are essentially their strong ties (Hossain and Silva 2009). Overall, ties and tie-strength is becoming more important as direct influencers of behavioral intention and usage in technology acceptance or as antecedents to the drivers of behavioral intention. As we understand the social networks better in contingent acceptance, this large body of earlier findings could become clearer.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 52

2.6 Gaps in the current knowledge or theory

There is a theme in the literature that demands more informal network understanding from the diffusion and technology acceptance models. This lack of understanding the social network can be partially filled by bringing visibility to the informal coping and influencing networks of these organizations as a new technology is being introduced into an organization in order to help triangulate the current understanding of technology acceptance. In the prior research, this lack of understanding the informal network can be grouped in seven areas to help solve key issues in technology acceptance. These include gaining better understanding the dynamics of failed technology acceptance projects, looking at contingency acceptance of organizations and individuals in early stages of the initiatives, providing better explanatory models, understanding network heterogeneity, accounting for network dynamics, taking advantage of the richness in individual data, and understanding network dynamics over time. These seven groups are expanded on in the following subsections.

2.6.1 Evaluate data and insight on failed technology acceptance

Most technology acceptance research within organizations focuses on successful new technologies acceptance initiatives that have been adopted by the organization, and then accepted by the individuals within the organizations, but very little focus on those that fail at some stage in this process or are significantly underused. This research puts the early phases of failed two failed technology projects under a microscope via the combination of social network analysis and technology acceptance. The two target technology acceptance initiatives have failed at some stage or have been dramatically reduced in scope and a social network analysis could shed light on the failure of the technology initiatives. This need for research on failed technology acceptance has been highlighted in several recent research studies. Devaraj and Kohli suggest that failure of systems to show productivity improvements are often due to a lack of system use (Devaraj and Kohli 2003) which could mean that the technology was implemented, but large portions of the users might underutilize it. Davis and

Venkatesh as well as Jasperson et al. also concur that new technologies are not being utilized to their full functional potential and new implementations continue to have a high rate of
failure, so the study of these causes are important (Davis and Venkatesh 2004). In the case of larger expenditures such as ERP systems, the failure is often inadequate training or change management, but there is a need to look at these failures both during the implementation and post-acceptance phases (Davis and Venkatesh 2004; Jasperson, Carter et al. 2005). These assertions would benefit from more explanatory power of the underutilization. Sykes et al. states this gap more directly in suggesting that a social network view could also help show how the help networks and resource controlling mechanisms are supporting or hindering the system use (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). Frambach and Schillewaert also suggest future research on the non-adoption of innovations. They suggest more research on the continued use of innovations and the role of critical mass on innovation adoption and the impact of network externalities (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). An interesting related gap in the literature suggests the need for technology suppliers to understand why some new technology implementations fail. Bhattacherjee explains that for a new technology supplier, the innovation acceptance is only successful when both the organization and the SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 53 individuals accept the innovation. In addition the targeted adopters must demonstrate commitment by continuing to use the product over time (Bhattacherjee 1998). For this reason, a longitudinal social network approach should include gathering research from technology suppliers who interact with the target company employees which could also shed light on actions they can take to avoid failures. Lastly, there is also a call for further understanding of the reasons for non-adoption, suggesting that we might understand adoption, but non-adoption and its dynamics. Gatignon and Robertson point out that we cannot assume that non-adoption is the opposite of adoption (Gatignon and Robertson 1989). Their research on laptop computers suggest that the dynamics will likely be more complex because the non-adoption causes can be within either the initiation or implementation phases. Non-adoption or acceptance could also mean many different things to individual non-adopters because they might have actively or passively decided to reject the innovation, alternatively it could be that they have not reached that point in the adoption process yet (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). These assertions suggest that alternative research approaches such as social network analysis could help shed light on why non-adoption happens.

2.6.2 Evaluate data and insight on contingent acceptance within the earlier stages of adoption/acceptance.
The second gap is a lack of technology acceptance understanding and the social network at the early stages of a new technology implementation, such as a pilot where both the individual and overall organizational acceptance is still undecided. Usage of technology acceptance perception values will also help with the planning; this general approach of using pre implementation surveys on factors such as perceived usability to better, understand and predict usage is valuable. Perceived usability was shown to be a strong predictor six months later in related situations (Davis and Venkatesh 2004), but should be explored more. There is significant discussion suggesting that there are many stages in contingent acceptance, but little understanding of these early stages. Most technology acceptance research is done when the technology is well into the implementation stage and primarily focus on the dichotomous adoption/non-adoption process but we know little about effect of different factors at the various stages (Olshavsky and Spreng 1996; Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). Stages of organizational adoption have been described as the initiation stage where the company becomes aware of the solution, form an attitude towards it, evaluates it, and the implementation stage (Zaltman, Duncan et al. 1973). The decision for the organization to adopt the technology usually happens between these two stages. A combination of understanding the social networks and TAM is also beneficial at this early stage knowing that the various researchers have suggested that the factors for each stage could be different. There has been research on the factors of adoption at different stages such as Meyer & Goes that found that later stages of innovation process, innovations were found to be lower risk, but more complex. In addition, Labay and Kinnear found that relative advantage is more important later in acceptance for the organization (Labay and Kinnear 1981; Meyer and Goes 1988; Frambach and Schillewaert 2002).

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 54

2.6.3 Explanatory Models:

Much of the quantitative literature on acceptance is primarily focused on aggregate models such as the Bass Model or its related descendants that incorporate hazard factors. Aggregate Bass model lacks explanatory power because it oversimplified the decision process and doesnt account for market heterogeneity (Dattee and Weil 2007). The concept of an innovation system lack attention at the micro-level, which often means you cant see what is blocking the diffusion of an innovation (Hekkert, Suurs et al. 2007) The work of Devaraj and Kohli suggest that failure systems to show productivity improvements are due to a lack of system use (Devaraj and Kohli 2003). A social network view could help show how the help networks and resource controlling mechanisms are supporting or hindering the system use (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). In this research hopes to shed additional light on the failure of the technology initiatives in a more explanatory fashion then the aggregate quantitative analysis.

2.6.4 Account for Heterogeneity:

There is a gap in providing more complete framework that is grounded in the principle of social heterogeneity, realizing that people are influence and are influenced differently in social networks, which is not available within the traditional Diffusion models. Dattee and Weil suggest that researchers focus on the critical initial adoption of an innovation which is driven by the social interactions within the network of the opinion leaders and change agents (Dattee and Weil 2007).

2.6.5 Account for Network Dynamics:

There is also a gap to under Within organizations, there is a need to better understand the organizational dynamics, network dynamics, and social processes with respect for innovation acceptance at a personal level (Ruud T. Framback 2002). There was also a demand for deeper insight into the inhibitors and stimulators of diffusion of innovations into organizations at both an aggregate and individual level to help suppliers market their products more effectively (Framback 2002).

2.6.6 Take Advantage of Richer Data:

The data that is often used in understanding technology acceptance is based on the individual attributes and the TAM factors that have been heavily researched such as perceived usability, but there has not been significant research incorporating the vastly larger set of data available once you incorporate social network connections, such as the network centrality or the average perceived usability of the direct connections a user has in the coping network. Emmanouilides and Davies proposed a methodology for modeling social interaction effects on the adoption of innovations, but also recognize that it does have several limitations such as individual variations and interaction over time and the need to incorporate richer data such as distances between households (Emmanouilides and Davies 2007).

2.6.7 Network Dynamics over Time:

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 55 The last gap is the need for understanding the changing social network dynamics over time and understanding how the structure of the social network might change at the critical points early in the technology acceptance that could be good predictors of wider acceptance. In Meade and Islams 25 year review of Modeling and forecasting of diffusion of innovations, they highlight the opportunity in future research to tap into the growing availability of cross-sectional and time series data describing consumers, which could be use d to provide more accuracy (Meade and Islam 2006). Dattee and Weil underscore this point suggesting that to better understand the acceptance across a large organization, we must understand the tipping point, which in early stage adoption is an outcome of the social networks which are non-uniform. (Dattee and Weil 2007)

2.7 Summary
The scope of this research and literature review spanned three macro areas of study, specifically social networks, organizational innovation, and individual technology acceptance. This literature review provided an overview and analysis of the related theories, key constructs and significant prior research that provides the foundation that this research builds upon. The chapter had five sections. This first section, 2.1, provided an overview of the chapter and timeline of research streams. Section 2.2 provided an overview of the significant literature around organizational innovation and the strength of weak ties on organizational innovation. This was then followed by section 2.3 which covered the individual diffusion of innovation and technology acceptance. Section 2.4 then provided an overview of the significant social network theories and constructs which included: the Hawthorne Studies, Structural Hole Theory, Social Capital, Simmelian Ties, Agent Based Modeling, and Social Network Analysis. Section 2.5 then focused on the models that combine social network analysis and individual technology acceptance which include Model of Acceptance with Peer Support (MAPs) and Social Information Processing Model (SIP). Section 2.6 then reviewed the seven gaps in the prior literature that this research hopes to help start closing. The chapter then concluded with a summary of the chapter.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 56

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

3.1 Introduction
This chapter will describe the Design and Methodology that was used to adequately answer the four research questions and provide enough guidance to duplicate this study by a knowledgeable researcher. This chapter starts by describing the hypothesis development, key variables and how they help answer the research questions. This is then followed by the research design section which addresses the types of samples and sample size, survey instrument and measures, data collection process, data analysis, validity issues, and reliability issues for this type of this research. Next, the longitudinal study section describes the location, subjects and technologies used for the study. The chapter is then concluded with a summary.

3.2 Hypothesis Development and Key Variables

3.2.1 Key variables (dependent, moderating, intervening) and a conceptual framework
For this research, there are two variations of technology acceptance conceptual models that this research is interested in. The goal is compare the adjusted R2 values of Behavior Intention between the two. The first model which also serves as the foundation of the conceptual model is the highly cited Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) from Venkatesh which is show in the figure below (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003).

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 57

Gender

Age

Performance Expectancy H1 Behavior Intention Use Behavior

Effort Expectancy

H2 H3

Social Influence

H4

Facilitating Conditions

Experience

Voluntariness of Use

Figure 9 - Venkatesh conceptual model for the Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT)(Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003)

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 58

The second model is based on extending the UTAUT model to incorporate the actual network connections of other individuals such as opinion leaders which could result from proximity, and team assignments. This is shown in Figure 10 - Extension of the Unified Theory and Use of Technology incorporating the actual network connections of the populations dyads to represent the social influence factor

Gender Age Influence Centrality H4 H5 Influence Alters Performance Expectancy Effort Expectancy H6 Coping Alters Performance Expectancy H7 Social Influence H8 H9 Voluntariness of Use Facilitating Conditions Experience Influence Centrality Influence Alters Performance Expectancy H1 Behavior Intention Use Behavior Performance Expectancy

H2 H3

H10

H12 H11

H13

Coping Centrality

Figure 10 - Extension of the Unified Theory and Use of Technology incorporating the actual network connections of the populations dyads to represent the social influence factor

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 59

3.2.2 Definitions of the Constructs and Measures of Constructs

The key variables for UTAUT and its the network constructs used in this study are further defined in the following sections. First, this section defines the standard UTAUT variables of Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, and Facilitating Conditions. This is then followed by the network variables and constructs used which includes Power and Centrality, Neighbors, Groups, Cliques, Clusters, Graphs, Matrices, Modes, Influencing and Coping Network Data, and Average Expectancy of Neighbors. Performance Expectancy Performance Expectancy can be summarized as measuring the perceptions if the person feels that the new technology is going to help them be more productive in their job or task they are trying to accomplish. Below are the survey questions used from the UTAUT study (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) I would find the system useful in my job. Using the system enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly. Using the system increases my productivity. If I use the system, I will increase my chances of getting a raise.

Effort Expectancy Effort Expectancy can be summarized as measuring the perceptions if the person feels that the new technology is going to be easy to use. Below are the survey questions used from the UTAUT study (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) My interaction with the system would be clear and understandable. It would be easy for me to become skillful at using the system. I would find the system easy to use. Learning to operate the system is easy for me.

Social Influence Social Influence can be summarized as measuring the perceptions if the person feels that the people they interact with encourage them to use the system. Below are the survey questions used from the UTAUT study (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) People who influence my behavior think that I should use the system. People who are important to me think that I should use the system. The senior management of this business has been helpful in the use of the system. In general, the organization has supported the use of the system.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 60 Facilitating Conditions Facilitating Conditions can be summarized as measuring the perceptions if the person feels that they have support, knowledge and resources to use the new technology. Below are the survey questions used from the UTAUT study (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003). I have the resources necessary to use the system. I have the knowledge necessary to use the system. The system is not compatible with other systems I use. A specific person (or group) is available for assistance with system difficulties.

Power & Centrality Power is an important concept when it comes to social or political networks. It essentially means who is able to get their own way. One of the more widely used definitions is Max Webers: Power is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests." (Raab 2009) When it comes to network analysis within organizations it is important to recognize that power is not just from the traditional hierarchical structure, but also from the informal network structures where information and access to resources are often controlled. A key metric for social network power is centrality. Centrality in networks is a calculated value that takes many forms but its general objective is to help identify the most important actors in a social network. The more common types of and calculations for centrality are closeness, betweenness, status, eigenvector, status, contra-status, and backbone centrality (Brandes 2009). When it comes to technology acceptance, we will be primarily using betweenness centrality which is a function of how many other pairs of nodes a node is positioned between. We will be using this centrality measure because it is recommended when you are trying to understand the flow of information which generally flows across the shortest routes in a network. This is what we need as we are trying to understand perceptions and information around technology acceptance.(Lerner 2009) Neighbors, Groups, Cliques, & Clusters Within social network analysis one of the research goals is often to identify actors that naturally belong together because of their attributes, relationships, perceptions, or behaviors. The number of steps between two nodes in a network is referred to as the distance. A common categorization or sub-graph of an overall network graph is a clique where all the nodes are connected with each other. These are further classified as k-cliques, k-clans, k-plexes, and kcores (Lerner 2009). For this research we will be primarily focused on k-cliques which are less restrictive where some of the nodes might be 2 or 3 steps away, where k is 2 or 3. Partitioning network graphs is done by either breaking it into its connected components or finding good clustering within components. Components are sub-graphs where every node is connected to the larger component. There are several manual and systematic clustering approaches for clustering and finding natural groups within a graph (Lerner 2009). In this study the groups are analyzed using the Girvan-Newman clustering approach within Netdraw (Jin, Girvan et al. 2001).

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 61 Positional equivalence, pendants, and isolates are also important to understand in organizational networks. Two actors are considered to have positional equivalence when they have similar or equivalent roles in the network based on their position. Pendants are nodes that are connected to the larger networks with only one connection or edge and isolates have no tie to the larger network groups. Graphs, Matrices, & Modes Social network are generally viewed as graphs of actors (nodes) and their relationships (edges) which is a good visualization for organizational networks because the number of nodes can often fit on one view which is the case for this research. Figure 12 - Example of Organizational Social Network constructed from asking respondents "List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you get help from for effective use of the Event Registration System".is an example of a network graph. The network connections for these are often stored as adjacency matrices which are two dimensional arrays where each row i and column j represent the different nodes in the graph and each entry Xij represents the presence of a relationship. The relationship can simply be binary to represent existence of a relationship, or it can also be directional and convey relationship strength (Lerner 2009). There might be several types of relationships between the different actors. In this research we are interested in where people go for help, which is a different relationship then where they might go to get resources for effective use. Each of these relationships is considered different modes which are stored in separate arrays. Influencing and Coping Network Data The relational data needed for social network analysis generally comes from four sources; surveys, statistics, documentary analysis, and observations. For this research the relationship data is collected from surveys by asking the following five questions (Schneider 2009; Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). The first two are used to understand an individuals coping network and the last three are to understand their influencing network.
List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you get help from for effective use of the <system>. List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you give help too for effective use of the <system>. List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that have access to information needed for effective use of the <system> (e.g., system features, upcoming releases, demo dates, etc.). List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you believe have strong domain/functional knowledge for effective use of the <system> (e.g., such as tips and tricks, short-cuts, process sequence, etc.). List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that have access to resources for effective use of the <system> (e.g., training resources, manuals, tutorials, etc.).

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 62 Average Performance Expectancy of Neighbors The Average Performance Expectancy of the Network Neighbors construct is also labeled as the Influence Network Alters PE (Performance Expectancy) and Coping Networks Alters PE. This is an ego-based measure for every actor in the network which is essentially the average of the continuous Performance Expectancy variable of all the neighbors that an individual is connected to and is generated using the Ucinet Ego Network Composition routine for a continuous variable (Borgatti, Everett et al. 2002). This can also be calculated using matrix algebra to transform an NxN adjacency matrix of the out-degree connections and a 1xN attribute matrix which contains the Performance Expectancy for each participant. The matrix algebra is shown in equation 1, which yields a 5xN matrix of the neighborhood means.
Equation 1 - Calculating Neighborhood PE means

] [

3.2.3 Hypothesis - how will they help answer the Research Questions
This section will describe the 13 hypothesis listed Table 2 Research Hypotheses, where are used within this causal research to help answer the research questions. The hypotheses are based on three quantitative driven research questions: RQ1: For organizational technology acceptance in the early phases of a contingent acceptance of a new technology, does the informal influencing network add additional explanatory power of the behavioral intention and system usage over the traditional UTAUT model? RQ1a. Does the Influence Network Centrality add additional explanatory power of the behavioral intention over the traditional UTAUT model? RQ1b. Does the Influence Network Centrality add additional explanatory power of the system usage over the traditional UTAUT model? RQ1c. Does the Neighbors Performance Expectancy in Influencing Network add additional explanatory power of the behavioral intention over the traditional UTAUT model? RQ1d. Does the Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network add additional explanatory power of the system usage over the traditional UTAUT model? RQ2: For organizational technology acceptance in the early phases of a contingent acceptance of a new technology, do the informal influencing networks impact the performance expectancy of the traditional UTAUT model? RQ2a. Does the Influence Network Centrality add additional explanatory power of the Performance Expectancy over the traditional UTAUT model? SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 63 RQ2b. Does the Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network add additional explanatory power of the Performance Expectancy over the traditional UTAUT model? RQ3: For organizational technology acceptance in the early phases of a contingent acceptance of a new technology, do the informal coping networks impact the Effort Expectancy or Facilitating Conditions of the traditional UTAUT model? RQ3a. Does the Coping Network Centrality add additional explanatory power of the Effort Expectancy over the traditional UTAUT model? RQ3b. Does the Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Coping Network add additional explanatory power of the Effort Expectancy over the traditional UTAUT model? RQ3c. Does the Coping Network Centrality add additional explanatory power of the Facilitating Conditions over the traditional UTAUT model? RQ3d. Does the Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Coping Network add additional explanatory power of the Facilitating Conditions over the traditional UTAUT model? To answer these first three research questions, the study needed to determine the amount of explained variance from the mean that is accountable for the factors (Adjusted R2) in each conceptual model for these factors. The adjusted R2 value was chosen to adjust the explained variance based on the number of variables or degrees of freedom. The first three hypotheses are based on the conceptual model and hypothesis from the earlier Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003). The purpose of these three hypotheses is twofold. First they enable the comparability of this research data back to the earlier UTUAT research (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003). This is essentially a check of its verity; does the work ring true and is it consistent with accepted knowledge in the field? If it departs; why? Second, this provides a base to build on with additional constructs.

Hypothesis 1
Performance Expectancy will positively impact Behavioral Intention. The 1st hypothesis is similar to the first hypothesis within the original UTAUT study which was to validate the influence of performance expectancy on behavioral intention, but the moderating factors are not included. When looking at the UTAUT factors, this study only focuses on the direct impacts in order to validate that they are consistent with prior research, but not replicate the more extensive and rigorous analysis on moderating factors that are involved in UTAUT (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) It is important to note that the influence of performance expectancy has been shown to be moderated by gender and age, such that the effect will be stronger for men and particularly for younger men. The gender difference is theorized that men tend to be more task-oriented and performance oriented based on socialization and gender roles. The age moderator is theorized by SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 64 the tendency for younger workers being more motivated by extrinsic rewards and younger women placing different levels importance on job related factors when they are younger without children, then later when they have families (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003).

Hypothesis 2
Effort Expectancy will positively impact Behavioral Intention. The 2nd hypothesis is similar to the second hypothesis within the original UTAUT study which is to validate the influence effort expectancy on behavioral intention, but the moderating factors are not included. When looking at the UTAUT factors, this study only focuses on the direct impacts in order to validate that they are consistent with prior research, but not replicate the more extensive analysis on moderating factors that are involved in UTAUT (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) It is important to understand that in prior research, the influence of Effort Expectancy on Behavioral Intention will be moderated by gender, age, and experience, such that the effect will be stronger for women, particularly younger women, and particularly at early stages of experience. The experience moderator is expected to be more significant in earlier stages of using a new technology as they present a barrier to usage, but become less in later stages. It is also expected that effort expectancy is more important to women than men based on gender roles. Age is also expected to play a role, as increased age has been associated with increased difficulty in processing complex stimuli. (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003)

Hypothesis 3
Social Influence will positively impact Behavioral Intention. The 3rd hypothesis is similar to the third hypothesis within the original UTAUT study which is to validate the impact of social influence on behavioral intention, but without the moderating factors. Similar to the first two hypothesis, its important to know that the influence of social influence on behavioral intention has been shown to be moderated by gender, age, voluntariness, and experience, such that the effect will be stronger for women, particularly older women in mandatory settings and in the early stages of experience (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003).

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 65

Hypothesis 4
Facilitating Conditions will positively impact System Use. Similar to Hypothesis 1-3, Hypothesis 4 is also a validation of the data to understand if it reaches similar conclusions and relationships to the prior research in the original UTAUT study (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003).

Hypothesis 5
Influence Network Centrality will positively impact System Use. Based on the research by Sykes et al. the behavioral intention and system-use was shown to increase with network centrality, so actors who are centrally located within organizational networks enjoy a broad array of benefits and opportunities (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). This would likely be more impactful for the Influencing network. This influencing indicates that people in central structural positions in a network will have more influence over system design to their needs which is often labeled as co-adoption, thus driving up their usage. This is also consistent that central individuals within an organization will likely have more assistance and resources to use new systems. Mossholder et al. makes the observation that Individuals with high centrality are more connected with others in their organizations, implying greater involvement in assistance exchanges with coworkers, whether the purpose is work-related or more personal(Mossholder, Settoon et al. 2005) Prior research has also shown that for use of new technologies, central individuals seek to increase their own performance. As Sparrowe et al observed, individual job performance was positively related to centrality in advice networks and negatively related to centrality in hindrance networks(Sparrowe, Linden et al. 2001), so one would expect those central in advice networks to have higher behavioral intention and system use then those on the periphery of the networks. Leskovec presents a model that successfully identifies communities, product, and pricing categories for which viral marketing seems to show how the networks involved in viral marketing create a recommendation network (Leskovec, Adamic et al. 2007). For technology acceptance within an organization, one could expect that depending on what group a person is in, they will be influenced by the values and recommendations within that group. For example an internal functional group might be more influenced by the social norm then a group that is primarily driven by numbers, such as a client revenue-generating group. One would also expect that the more involved individuals are in the group, or how central they are, they would also be impacted more by the social norm. An isolate, or someone who is not central, might not be influenced by social norms as much. This hypothesis could also be viewed as a validation that users who are central to the network have significantly more access to resources and people to help them with a new technology as opposed to someone who isnt as central. Betweenness centrality is considered the mode at which information flows within networks, so access to facilitating conditions for a technology would be expected to correlate to centrality (Raab 2009). The Betweenness Centrality is normalized via Ucinet based on Freemans work (Borgatti, Everett et al. 2002)

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 66

Hypothesis 6
The Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network will positively impact the Behavioral Intention. Performance Expectancy of a persons Neighbors will have a significant impact on the persons own Behavioral Intention and System Use. This is also supported by the 2006 study in the adoption of mobile technologies where network neighbors (those consumers linked to a prior customer) adopt the service at a rate 35 times greater than baseline groups selected by the best practices of the firms marketing team. From this, we would also expect the Performance Expectancy and Effort Expectancy perceptions to be influenced by the neighbors (Hill, Provost et al. 2006). Also, an increase in interactions a user has with others who have access to information, domain knowledge or can offer help with a technology, the more likely they will have a positive behavioral intention. Essentially, Hill et al. found that predictive power increased based on the number and duration of communications (Hill, Provost et al. 2006). As noted in the Hill research for mobile phones, adoption is significantly driven by the neighbors, and the groups in this research on organizations are relatively small, so this study would expect neighbors inside of these groups to impact the behavioral intention as a moderator (Hill, Provost et al. 2006).

Hypothesis 7
Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network will positively impact System Use. This hypothesis is supported because people in central structural positions in a network will have more influence over system design to meet their needs. Those in the Influencing network are expected to have more domain knowledge, access to information and resources related to the technology, thus increasing their ability to co-adopt the technology. This drives up their usage which would make those central in the influencing network more critical on system use then those central in the coping network. Suggesting that Performance Expectancy of a persons Neighbors will have a significant impact on the persons own System Use is also supported by the 2006 study in the adoption of mobile technologies where network neighbors (those consumers linked to a prior customer) adopt the service at a rate 35 times greater than baseline groups selected by the best practices of the firms marketing team. From this, we would expect the Performance Expectancy and Effort Expectancy perceptions to also be influenced by the neighbors (Hill, Provost et al. 2006).

Hypothesis 8
The Influence Network Centrality will positively impact Performance Expectancy This hypothesis is supported by understanding the dynamics of co-adoption, opportunities of being central, job performance, and betweenness centrality. First, Influencing Network Centrality suggests that people in central structural positions in a network will have more influence on the co-adoption of the system design, which should also increase their

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 67 Performance Expectancy of the new technology. The Influence Network Centrality would also suggest that these individuals have more opportunities to try new technologies. Second, these resources have more opportunities to use new technologies as suggested by Sykes et al., where the behavioral intention or system-use was shown to increase with network centrality because actors who are centrally located within organizational networks enjoy a broad array of benefits and opportunities (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). This increased use of new technologies would increase their perceptions of new technologies or personal innovativeness. Third, job performance increases when an individual is central in networks. Sparrowe et al observed that individual job performance was positively related to centrality in advice networks and negatively related to centrality in hindrance networks(Sparrowe, Linden et al. 2001), so one would expect those central in advice networks to have higher Performance Expectancy then those on the periphery of the networks because innovative technologies help them increase their job performance. Lastly, users with high betweenness centrality have significantly more access to resources and people to help them with a new technology which will help with their perceptions of the technology. Betweenness centrality is considered the mode at which information flows within networks, so access to facilitating conditions for a technology would be expected to correlate to centrality (Raab 2009). Central individuals within an organization are also more likely to have more assistance and resources to use new systems. Mossholder et al. makes the observation that Individuals with high centrality are more connected with others in their organizations, implying greater involvement in assistance exchanges with coworkers, whether the purpose is work-related or more personal(Mossholder, Settoon et al. 2005).

Hypothesis 9
Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network will positively impact Performance Expectancy. Performance Expectancy of a persons Neighbors will have a significant impact on the persons own Behavioral Intention and System Use. This is supported by the 2006 study in the adoption of mobile technologies where network neighbors (those consumers linked to a prior customer) adopt the same mobile service at a rate 35 times greater than baseline groups selected by the best practices of the firms marketing team. From this, we would expect the Performance Expectancy and Effort Expectancy perceptions to also be influenced by the neighbors (Hill, Provost et al. 2006).

Hypothesis 10
The Coping Network Centrality will positively impact the Effort Expectancy. Coping theory is an important concept within the mapping of social networks and technology acceptance. Coping is defined as all thoughts and behaviors performed by a person in order to manage (minimize, reduce, master, tolerate) demands emanating from a specific change in the person-environment relationship (Lazarus 1966). It would be expected that those more central in the coping network would use the available resources help cope with a new technologies. If they

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 68 have more resources by being central in a coping network, it would be expected that they have higher Effort Expectancy or in other words, perceive that it would be easier to use. Mossholder et al. further supports that centrality gives more opportunities for help by making the observation that Individuals with high centrality are more connected with others in their organizations, implying greater involvement in assistance exchanges with coworkers, whether the purpose is work-related or more personal (Mossholder, Settoon et al. 2005).

Hypothesis 11
Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Coping Network will positively impact the Effort Expectancy. As mentioned for Hypothesis 10, coping theory is an important concept within the mapping of social networks and technology acceptance and encompasses all the thoughts and behaviors performed by a person in order to manage (minimize, reduce, master, tolerate) demands emanating from a specific change in the person-environment relationship (Lazarus 1966). Research has shown that Performance Expectancy of a persons Neighbors will have a significant impact on the persons own Behavioral Intention and System Use. For example, this is supported by the 2006 study in the adoption of mobile technologies where network neighbors (those consumers linked to a prior customer) adopt the service at a rate 35 times greater than baseline groups (Hill, Provost et al. 2006). Building upon this line of reasoning; this hypothesis suggests that the antecedents of Behavioral Intention, such as Effort Expectancy, are the more important factors that individuals discuss with their network neighbors. Thus, one could expect that the Performance Expectancy and Effort Expectancy perceptions are the mediating factors that are directly influenced by the neighbors own perceptions, as opposed to direct use.

Hypothesis 12
The Coping Network Centrality will positively impact the Facilitating Conditions The specific survey questions that have been validated to measure Facilitating conditions are as follows (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003): I have the resources necessary to use the system. I have the knowledge necessary to use the system. The system is not compatible with other systems I use. A specific person (or group) is available for assistance with system difficulties.

With the exception of the compatibility question, these indicate closeness or access to information or people. For this reason we would expect closeness, specifically Betweenness Centrality which is a good information flowing measure would have a relationship with Facilitating Conditions (Raab 2009). One challenge, which is not directly addressed in this research, is to determine if the Coping Network Centrality moderating or mediating factor between Facilitating Conditions and Behavioral Intention.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 69

Hypothesis 13
Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Coping Network will positively impact the Facilitating Conditions As mentioned earlier, coping theory is defined as all thoughts and behaviors performed by a person in order to manage (minimize, reduce, master, tolerate) demands emanating from a specific change in the person-environment relationship (Lazarus 1966). One might expect that if an individual whose neighbors that help them cope with a new technology have higher Performance Expectancy measures that could increase that individuals own Facilitating Conditions score because those neighbors would be a better resource to help cope or provide assistance with using the new technology. Once again, reviewing the survey questions used to measure Facilitating Conditions are (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) in the previous section indicate closeness or access to information or people who could help them. For this reason we would expect that if someone was predominately surrounded by individuals in their Coping Network who had a high Performance Expectancy of the new technology, it would indicate that they are in a location of the network that also has access to more Facilitating Conditions.

Summary of the Hypothesis

As a summary, Table 2 provides a listing of these 13 hypotheses, their related research questions, the UTAUT model used, their dependent variable, and their independent variable.

Table 2 Research Hypotheses

Hyp.

RQ

Model

Hypothesis, Research Question Model Number Performance Expectancy will Positively Impact Behavioral Intention Effort Expectancy will Positively Impact Behavioral Intention Social Influence will Positively Impact Behavioral Intention Facilitating Conditions will positively impact System Use Influence Network Centrality will positively impact Behavioral Intention The Influence Network Centrality will positively impact System Use The Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network will

Dependent Variable Behavioral Intention Behavioral Intention Behavioral Intention System Use

Independent Variable Performance Expectancy Effort Expectancy

H1

Traditional UTAUT Traditional UTAUT Traditional UTAUT Traditional UTAUT RQ1a Extended UTAUT Extended UTAUT Extended

H2

H3

Social Influence

H4

Facilitating Conditions Influence Network Centrality Influence Network Centrality Neighbors Performance

H4

Behavioral Intention System Use

H5

RQ1b

H6

RQ1c

Behavioral

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 70

UTAUT positively impact the Behavioral Intention Intention Expectancy in the Influencing Network Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network Influence Network Centrality

H7

RQ1d

Extended UTAUT

The Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network will positively impact System Use

System Use

H8

RQ2a

Extended UTAUT

The Influence Network Centrality will positively impact Performance Expectancy The Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network will positively impact Performance Expectancy

Performance Expectancy

H9

RQ2b

Extended UTAUT

Performance Expectancy

Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network Coping Network Centrality Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Coping Network Coping Network Centrality

H10

RQ3a

Extended UTAUT Extended UTAUT

The Coping Network Centrality will Positively Impact the Effort Expectancy The Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Coping Network will Positively Impact the Effort

Effort Expectancy Effort Expectancy

H11

RQ3b

H12

RQ3c

Extended UTAUT

The Coping Network Centrality will Positively Impact the Facilitating Conditions The Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Coping Network will Positively Impact the Facilitating Conditions

Facilitating Conditions

H13

RQ3d

Extended UTAUT

Facilitating Conditions

Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Coping Network

The fourth research question was more qualitative then quantitative, but is used to uncover if using social network graphs merged with technology acceptance perceptions would add valuable insight to managers in the process of planning, executing, and monitoring a technology acceptance project and potentially increase the likelihood of identifying potential problems, opportunities, or key resources for specific roles to help in their day-to-day decision making. R4: For organizational technology acceptance in the early phases of a contingent acceptance of a new technology, would using a social network graphs of the influencing and coping networks with the UTUAT perception data improve the likelihood of success of the project? Similar to the Hawthorne studies, this requires a post-structuralism approach where the goal is not to find the statistical significance or search for the ideal quantifiable model, but instead to find SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 71 meaning and open up new questions (Borgatti, Everett et al. 2002; Kilduff and Tsai 2003). In the case of technology acceptance studies using social network analysis, we should consider this poststructuralism approach to help uncover new knowledge about how perceptions and networks are formed in this very dynamic and confusing environment of conditional acceptance of technologies within organizations

3.3 Research Design

This research design for the first three research questions is based on a positivist research knowledge paradigm to help uncover the behavioral intention of using new technologies and provide a quantitative model of the acceptance of technology at the macro level and also understanding the user interactions using social network analysis at the micro level. The positivist approach is taken because the research is assuming that there are quantifiable models of both technology acceptance and social networks that will determine peoples behavior towards new technologies or innovations. To do this, the research looks at the acceptance of two technologies within a large organization and attempts to be an objective viewer focusing on the facts, looking for causality, and operationalizing concepts. This quantitative causal study used hypothesis testing investigating the correlation of multiple technology acceptance factors and social network measures on the acceptance of new technologies in this organization. The primary instruments are a questionnaire with scaling to determine perceptions of the new technologies and to identify social network connections (dyads). In addition supporting company documents and observations were used to help determine participant attributes and provide context of the technology acceptance pilots. The data analysis used primarily statistical descriptive results such as Pearsons correlation coefficient and factor analysis. This research used cluster sampling where the natural group (cluster) was the population within an organization that was adopting a new technology. This helped ensure we can create a representative social network model of the connections of individuals and their interactions regarding the target technology. This non-contrived study will include a longitudinal questionnaire which is given to the same individuals prior to a new technology pilot, then a few months after the pilot starts which will add to our understanding of how the influencing and coping networks could change in parallel with the success or failure of a new technology or innovation. The research was longitudinal to also gain further insight over time of the change in the social network and the users scores on Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social influence, Facilitating Conditions, Behavioral Intention, and the moderating variables of gender, department, age, experience, and voluntariness of use over time.

3.3.1 Type of Sample and sample size determination

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 72 Technology pilots or proof-of-concepts within organizations are often limited to small groups of people; to support a smaller sample size of less than 100 surveys, we needed to understand the characteristics of the sample, the sample size relative to the number of variables, and the importance of sample size within the context of social network analysis. We discuss these in the next three subsections and then provide our conclusions on the number samples needed and if two pilots are adequate.

Characteristics of Sample
There were approximately 81 surveys completed for two separate pilots completed which was relatively close to what was expected. In looking at the sample size, it is important to understand the potential autocorrelation or dependencies within the data. This research was targeted at two technologies with surveys before and after a pilot within a single organization; most users completed two surveys and three users were involved in both technologies pilots given their roles in the organizations at the time (one of which was the researcher) which is shown in Table 3.
Table 3 - Summary of unique surveys for different technologies, time, and individuals

Unique Surveys Event Registration System Enterprise Project Management Total

Pre-Pilot 35 11 46

Post-Pilot 25 9 34

Total 61 20 81

Unique Users Event Registration Systems Only Enterprise Project Management Systems Only Both Systems Total 32 8 3 42

Sample Size Relative to Number of Variables

For this analysis one of the main data analysis techniques planned was multiple regressions. There are several suggested sample size guidelines for this type of analysis that this study could use. First, Hair, Anderson, et al. suggest you should have 20 samples for each cell for ANOVA. They also suggest that and for each independent variable you should have a minimum of 5 observations for each independent variable (Hair, Anderson et al. 1998). They also suggest a more desirable level is 15-20 observations for each independent and dependent variable to make the sample generalizable.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 73 One other way to evaluate the sample size for the factor analysis is from Guadoganoli & Velicer, who indicated that the research would need five to ten times the number of respondents per item (Guadagnoli and Velicer 1988); this would indicate that the research could need 24 questionnaire items multiplied by 10, which yields 240 respondents. Thankfully, these 21 questions that are part of the regression are reduced to six measures, which results in a required sample size of around 60 observations. For this study, this indicates that 80 observations could support this study with up to 8 variables.

Sample Size within the Context of Social Network Analysis

This smaller sample size of 42 unique user is typical for social network analysis (Kilduff and Tsai 2003), but not for factor analysis resulting from power analysis (MacCallum, Browne et al. 1996). Thus, determining the sample size for this research was one of the more challenging areas of the research because we are bringing in a relatively new unit of observation, the dyad, which also means we cannot assume that each individual sample is independent. The survey and other measures in this research are intended to provide a comparison across two modeling approaches for the impact of social norm, so we need to consider the different models in evaluating the correct number of samples. The following sections discuss the sample size based on the two models being presented and in light of the research questions. MODEL 1: Traditional Model of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTUAT) For the basic factor analysis of the User Acceptance of Information Technology, this research is essentially duplicating the same factors and measures that were used by Venkatesh in his earlier work of User Acceptance of Information Technology; Toward a Unified View (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003). So its expected that the results are in line with the earlier work and the primary research questions are not to validate the factor analysis for all the different variables in that study, which would likely require a larger sample size, Alternatively, this research is only focused on getting a further understanding of the effect of the social norm factor uses by Venkatesh in comparison to other social norm modeling approaches, which will give the research more flexibility in its sample size. One strategy that was used to proving the impacts of several social network variables on technology acceptance with a smaller sample size was to minimize the degrees of freedom of this research to allow the reduction of samples needed while still providing an adequate confidence in the results. A second strategy was to combine the results of both research projects (Enterprise Project Management and the Event Management System. A third strategy was including the second set of longitudinal surveys for each of the participants, which brings the sample size up to 81, which is often a strategy to increase the power (Maxwell 2004). This required the research to address the statistical challenges and potential risk of these results not being independent. MODEL 2: Traditional Model of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTUAT) with Actual Network Connections

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 74 For the second model which replaces the survey questions on social influence with a richer measure that will be determined based on the behavioral intention of the subjects actual network connections. By incorporating the actual network connection data, the research gathers richer data that includes who the participants look to as opinion leaders and coping support around this technology. More importantly it gains visibility of the opinion leaders perceptions of this new technology. In this case we are not just looking for large sample sizes, but trying gain further insight into the interactions between the individuals which does not require such large sample sizes. The tradition of analyzing the network connections can yield meaningful results for groups as small as 14 as was done in the Hawthorn research that studied the motivation and interaction of 6 networks within a bank wiring room (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1939). In determining the confidence of a social network where the unit of observation is a dyad, there are inherent problems such as each dyad being strongly dependent on each other. This could lead to statistical autocorrelation, which could yield positive bias in an ordinary-least-squares (OLS) tests and significant relationships between dependent and independent variables that dont exist. To simplify this model in terms of degrees of freedom, the research used all of an individuals connections in either of the coping or influencing networks as a single factor for group membership and centrality rather than using each network mode as a separate factor.

Conclusion on Sample Size for this Research

With limiting the number of variables to 8-9 in the finalized model, using a longitudinal study, using hierarchical or multi-level regression to validate that the research is not overlooking any missing variables due to the potential of autocorrelation or dependence amongst the results, and understanding that social network analysis of organizations often have smaller sample sizes, this indicates that a sample size of 80 should be adequate for this research. This is consistent with the precedent of having richer data, but smaller samples, such as the Hawthorn study of 14 (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1939; Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009) , the research on MAPS of 81 (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009), and the research on TAM/SIPM of 31 (Lee, Cho et al. 2003).

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 75

3.3.2 Survey Instrument and Measures

Data collection methods: questionnaire design, question design
This study will primarily be using instruments that have been used before in order to allow comparisons to previous research and focus more energy on the factors around social influence through different ways of modeling it. For the bulk of the questionnaire it leveraged questions from earlier works from Venkatesh on UTAUT. (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) For Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Facilitating Conditions, and Behavioral Intention, the survey questions were based on earlier established work and had acceptable loadings of greater the 0.7 showing adequate content validity (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003)

Performance Expectancy
I would find the system useful in my job. Using the system enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly. Using the system increases my productivity. If I use the system, I will increase my chances of getting a raise.

Effort expectancy
My interaction with the system would be clear and understandable. It would be easy for me to become skillful at using the system. I would find the system easy to use. Learning to operate the system is easy for me.

Social influence
People who influence my behavior think that I should use the system. People who are important to me think that I should use the system. The senior management of this business has been helpful in the use of the system. In general, the organization has supported the use of the system.

Facilitating conditions
I have the resources necessary to use the system. I have the knowledge necessary to use the system. The system is not compatible with other systems I use. A specific person (or group) is available for assistance with system difficulties.

Behavioral intention to use the system

. I intend to use the system in the next <n> months. I predict I would use the system in the next <n> months. I plan to use the system in the next <n> months

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 76 For the implicit social influence questions, they were based on Kim, Jahng et als research on An empirical investigation into the utilization-based information technology success model: integrating task performance and social influence perspective (Kim, Jahng et al. 2007)

Implicit social influence

My colleagues are frequently using the software for their job-related tasks. My co-workers are frequently using the software for their job-related tasks. My supervisor is frequently using the software for his or her job-related tasks. My subordinates are frequently using the software for their job-related tasks. My companys executives are frequently using the software for their job-related tasks.

In the second technology acceptance project, the Event Management System, there was not an effective way to gather system usage through system logs or specific knowledge of usage, so four questions were added to the post-pilot survey to provide a secondary validation of the actual system usage which were also used in earlier work in the study titled Prediction of Internet and World Wide Web usage at work: a test of an extended Triandis model published in 2002 by Cheung, Chang, and Lai (Cheung, Chang et al. 2000). These questions had a loading of .75 or greater. It is important to note that when looking at self-reported or system reported usage, Agarwal and Prasad (Agarwal and Prasad 1998) concluded that current usage was not a significant predictor of future use intention.
I use the <system> very intensively (many hours per day, at work) I use the <system> very frequently (many times per day, at work) I use the <system> for variety of applications (reports, projects, decision making, etc..) Overall, I use the <system> a lot

To enable the social network modeling, five other questions were added to identify the interactions between the individuals in a social network which were also leveraged from earlier works to help identify the coping and influence networks, but were modified to allow 1-3 answers from the respondents. (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009)
List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that have access to information needed for effective use of the Event Registration System (e.g., system features, upcoming releases, demo dates, etc.). List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you get help from for effective use of the Event Registration System. List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you give help too for effective use of the Event Registration System. List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you believe have strong domain/functional knowledge for effective use of the Event Registration System (e.g., such as tips and tricks, short-cuts, process sequence, etc.). List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that have access to resources for effective use of the Event Registration System (e.g., training resources, manuals, tutorials, etc.).

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 77

3.3.3 Data Collection Process

Method of contacting respondents
The research involves participants within the same company of which the researcher has established relationships with most departments in its headquarters and one of its larger satellite offices. For the respondents, the researcher initially contacted them individually via phone, individually inperson, or as part of a regularly scheduled staff meeting to explain the purpose, outcomes, level of anonymity prior to sending them an hardcopy survey, participant consent, and information sheet.

Enterprise Project Management (EPM) Technology Pilot

For the MS Project Server subjects, the researcher attended the project kick off and training session which consisted of a team of 11 people who were going to participate in the pilot. The meeting included eight employees of the marketing company and three consultants who were hired to help configure and conduct the pilot on a sampling of projects within the IT department. The researcher received permission from the trainer to use 15 minutes on the agenda right before a break on the first day. During this first 15 minutes where the researcher gave an overview of the research, then provided the attendees with the information sheet, participant consent form, and hardcopy surveys which were all returned by the end of the break. The researcher emphasized the confidentiality of the surveys and that they were completely optional because the researcher was a stakeholder in the initial decision to evaluate this particular technology, and several of the individuals participating in the pilot reported into the researchers department that he headed as the IT Director. The researcher was also included as a participant because he was a stakeholder and potential user of the new technology and would likely use it in his department if the company moves forward with a rollout after the pilot. The CIO was also asked to complete a survey because he would likely be using reports or project portfolio views from the technology, was providing the funding, was the final decision maker for the project, and frequently inquired onto its progress (approximately 1-2 times per week). The pre-pilot survey was distributed in a hardcopy format primarily because the researcher had faceto-face access to the subjects and needed them to sign the participant consent form as well. The second survey was delayed and conducted eight months later for two reasons. First, it was concluded based on the pilot and two months of informal discussions that there was not enough ROI to continue after the pilot so an immediate rollout was not pursued. Second, the majority of the IT organization was overwhelmed with work because the company was sold to a new owner which required moving and rebuilding the datacenter and applications. The original 11 subjects in the MS Project Server pilot were significantly dispersed by the time the second survey was conducted. Two of the three consultants were on assignment at other clients and two the employees no longer worked for the marketing company. For those who were no longer at the marketing company, an online survey was sent to their current email addresses and responses were collected from 9 of the original 11 respondents.

Event Management System Pilot

For the Event Management System pilot, the 36 initial hardcopy surveys were distributed individually to the resources that were close to the pilot or parts of the operations groups that would SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 78 be significantly impacted by a new events registration technology. The initial selection of participants was done by the researcher and the department Vice President where most of the events staff worked. Originally they picked 30 individuals who would be impacted or were part of the network of individuals working on this pilot. After distributing the first 30 surveys and receiving some back, there were several others that were also given surveys because they were identified as part of the network of individuals who might give help or receive help on the usage of the Event Management System from the others who already completed the surveys. To distribute the surveys, the researcher visited each persons desk, gave them a 2-3 minute overview of the research and gave them the survey, participant consent form, information letter, and self-addressed stamped envelope to mail the survey in a confidential fashion to the researchers residence. One group which sat in the same cube row put all of their survey results in a single intercompany envelope as they finished them on the desk of their team lead. Some of these were put into sealed envelopes before they were combined with the others in the larger envelope. The researcher collected these twice daily so they were not left on the team leads desk for an extended period. The researcher was also included as a participant in this study, as well as the CIO because they were involved in the business case, functionality, and training discussions around the pilot. Thus, they were part of the network of individuals affecting the technology acceptance. The data collection approach included both survey data and observational data collected at the beginning of the pilots and then after the initial pilots were complete as shown in Figure 11 Longitudinal Approach to Data Collection.

Longitudinal Approach to Data Collection

Pre-PIlot (month 1) Survey Data (all participants) Control/Moderator Variables (age, etc) Influence Network Connections Coping Network Connections Performance Expectancy Effort Expectancy Social Influence Facilitating Conditions Behavioral Intention to us the system Implicit Social Influence Observational Data Proximity Network Role / Title / Company / Department Organization Hierarchical Post Pilot (3 months later for EMS, 8 months later for EPM) Survey Data (all participants) Control/Moderator Variables (age, etc) Influence Network Connections Coping Network Connections Performance Expectancy Effort Expectancy Social Influence Facilitating Conditions Behavioral Intention to us the system Implicit Social Influence Self-Reported Usage (pre & post pilot)

Figure 11 Longitudinal Approach to Data Collection

3.3.4 Data Analysis

Overview and statistical tools used
SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 79 The data analysis for this research consisted of collecting the pre and post-pilot survey data and identifying any significant missing network nodes. This survey data was then combined with data from organizational documents and the names encoded for confidentiality into statistical analysis software. Social network models were then created to calculate the network perception values, centrality, and groups. Some of the network measures, such as betweenness centrality and the neighbors average performance expectation were then fed back into the statistical software as attributes enabling pooled and un-pooled statistical analysis of descriptive statistics, correlations, loadings, hierarchical regressions, and Analysis of Variance to calculate adjusted R2 values. These steps enabled the research to address the hypothesis and research questions. Two additional steps were completed in order to provide further insight into the data. First, there were two qualitative interviews done to provide context of the event registration technology acceptance. Second, the standard UTUAT perceptions attributes for each participant were mapped back into the network graphs to allow visualization of the perceptions in combination with groups and centralities. The statistical analysis tool used for this quantitative study was SPSS Version 19 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). UCINET Network Analysis Software (Borgatti, Everett et al. 2002) was used for matrix algebra to transform perception attributes and adjacency matrices into neighborhood means for each actor and consolidate network modes, and calculate centralities and groups. NetDraw (Borgatti 2002) was used to render network graphs and their related attributes.

Collection of Pre and Post-Pilot Data, Encode Names, and Identify Missing Nodes
For both the pre and post pilot surveys, the technology acceptance attributes, basic demographics, and social network connections were collected through confidential online or hardcopy surveys. The remaining attributes that were collected and coded outside of the survey based on organizational documentation as described in table 6.
Table 4 - Coded attributes for participants not collected in survey

Attribute Gender

Source Researcher Entered

Coding Notes The researcher already knew the participant or met them when the survey has presented to the participant Researcher segmented headquarters using office layout and noted their location on a hierarchy view of the organization during distribution of surveys. Non-marketing company individuals were labeled by their specific company, such as Event Management System Vendor or Client A Roles were generalized to allow pooling across both initiatives and protect confidentiality if only one person has a specific title.

Office Location

Office Layout & location noted on organizational hierarchy diagram Company affiliation of participant, if not part of target company Organizational hierarchy diagram, established consulting role, or published on company website

Company

Role

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 80 Title Organizational hierarchy diagram, established consulting role, or published on company website Coded based on pilot timeline The titles are closely mapped to the roles and not as generic, so they are not used in the analysis.

Experience

Pre-pilot: 0 Post-pilot: 1

This was generalized, but not perfect because some individuals had prior experience with the technologies before the pilots through other companies or some exposure for a specific client. Voluntariness Coded taking into account the status of pilot, role, or company Exec: voluntary for their role Director: voluntary for their role, unless they were assigned to the pilot initiative as a user Technology Vendor: Mandatory for both pre and post pilot surveys Technology Consulting Vendor: mandatory for both pre and post-pilot surveys Resources assigned to pilots: mandatory for prepilot survey Voluntary for marketing company resources on EPM system post-pilot survey because it was organizationally decided not to implement the system As reported in second EMS survey, if not reported, then actual usage entered based on following rules, or left blank if questionable Marketing Company Exec: No usage, since they didnt have hands-on experience Technology Vendor: Yes Technology Consulting Vendor: Yes

Actual Usage

Surveyed for most individuals on EMS project, but coded for EPM project based on role, and company

For the social network connections, the survey asked for 1-3 names of resources that the participant interacted with on a weekly basis for the five network modes; give help, get help, knowledge, resources, and information. This was done because of the large size of the departments that could influence the acceptance of the technologies and the difficulty of accurately identifying all of the possible relevant connection nodes in the five network modes. For the Enterprise Project Management pre-pilot survey, there were a significant number of connections outside of the initial targeted list of survey participants; many of which were outside of the marketing company. Based SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 81 on this learning, when the Event Management Surveys were sent out, a snowball approach was taken where additional surveys were also sent out to connections that were identified by 2 or more of the initial targeted participant list as connections. By not providing a list of the possible connections, there was a risk of missing significant connections resulting in a lower density network, or having a larger number of isolates because the survey participant might not be able to think of a relevant connection at the time they took the survey.

Initial data analysis for suitability

The initial data analysis focused on checking the quality of the data look for intervening or controlling variables such as gender using the basic statistical descriptive values and looking for outliers.

Correlations
The relationship strength and direction between the continuous variables were calculated using the Pearsons correlation coefficient r. This can also be squared to determine the shared variance. When looking at the relationship strength, the study followed the rule of thumb that r=.10 indicates a small effect, .30 indicates a medium effect, .50 indicates a large effect size (Tharenou, Donohue et al. 2007). To avoid computational and interpretational problems with multiple regressions, the study also validated the assumption of absence of multi-collinearity through the check of the bivariate correlations using Pearsons correlation coefficients. The study didnt need to drop any variables, which would be the solution if two independent variables were correlated higher than .70. If the coefficient was greater than .70 it would indicate that they may have collinearity and the least theoretically defensible one would be dropped (Wilkinson and (TFSI) 1999).

Adjacency Matrices
For each independent survey set, adjacency matrices were created for each of the five modes of connections; give help, get help, information, knowledge, and resources. These were created to be used in Ucinet (Borgatti, Everett et al. 2002) and Netdraw (Borgatti 2002) to perform social network analysis. There are two survey sets for each new technology initiative; one for the pre-pilot surveys and one for the post pilot surveys. All of the strength of the connections was 1 for an identified connection and 0 for non-connection. An additional adjacency matrix was created for each survey set which represented the influence and coping networks. The coping network was the sum of the get help and give help connection modes. The influence network was the sum of the access to information, resources, and information modes. Thus if a participant indicated they frequently interact with a colleague whom they gave help to on the technology and received help on the technology, their aggregate connection strength is 2 for the coping network.

Social Network Graphs

Network graphs were created in Ucinet and Netdraw to help visualize and analyze the network dyads identified from the surveys. Below is an example of an organizational social network of SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 82 individuals for illustrative purposes which were constructed by asking survey respondents to list 1-3 people that they interact with or will interact with in a typical week to get help from for effective use of a particular new technology. In this case, each node represents a person, each directed link represents identified relationships, the node size represents the betweenness centrality of the nodes, and the color-coding represents particular factions of the network.

Figure 12 - Example of Organizational Social Network constructed from asking respondents "List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you get help from for effective use of the Event Registration System".

Betweenness Centrality
This study needed to calculate the betweenness centrality using Ucinet and Netdraw for the coping and influence networks. The calculation from Ucinet was imported back into the statistical analysis tool (SPSS) to be used for the regression analysis. The centrality measure that was used to determine the relative node size in the graphs was betweenness centrality within Netdraw. For the regression analysis, the betweenness centrality was then normalized to allow comparison across networks, then copied back into SPSS for factor analysis.

Hierarchical Regressions
Multiple regressions are the most common way in business research to understand the extent of multiple independent variables on the dependent variable of Behavioral Intention, Use Behavior, and others (Tharenou, Donohue et al. 2007). In this research, where the participants are from the same workgroups, there is a significant risk in drawing inaccurate conclusions caused by autocorrelation of data that resulted from the potential dependence between respondents. To mitigate this risk, this study used a hierarchical regression to validate that the potential second or

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 83 third level fixed or random factors are not significant drivers of variance by initially entering the demographic variables, then entering the work environment factors. Specifically, study will initially be looking at time (experience), gender, department, technology, voluntariness, company, and role. After these are accounted for, the variance from relevant UTAUT variables will be evaluated, and only then the study evaluates the impact of the social network variables of coping network centrality, influence network centrality, coping neighbors average performance expectancy, and influencing neighbors average performance expectancy. Alternatively, if these initial multiple regressions that include demographic factors are not conclusive of negating autocorrelation, then a researcher could use a multi-level mixed model to analyze the data at multiple levels to ensure the study is uncovering any homophily within the sample set so it can be generalized beyond this sample (Painter ; Singer 1998; Tabachnick and Fidell 2001).

3.3.5 Validity and Reliability of the Study

Reliability is the data free of random errors?
Reliability, one goal of any research, is to ensure that it is replicable and will produce similar results if repeated. This can be also viewed as the extent to which a measure is free of random measurement error (Smithson 2005). Poor reliability weakens the effect size and limits our ability to detect relationships between variables. For this research the reliability was addressed in three ways. First, the study used existing scales from prior established research for the survey questions which were shown to be reliable. All of the survey questions from the UTAUT were based on earlier established work and had acceptable loadings of greater the 0.7 (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) and the Implicit Social Influence loading was .868 (Kim, Jahng et al. 2007) showing adequate content validity. Second, the study calculated the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the pooled data, which is an internal consistency reliability to validate that items are consistent with each other. (Nullally, 1978) Third, the researcher had three experts review the survey instrument to validate that the questions where understandable. For a pre-pilot of the survey instruments, the research asked these three employees at the target company to review the surveys and identify any areas that might be confusing to answer. The three experts were an IT Director and two Business Consultants. All three were also targeted users for the research as well. There was only one significant issues identified which was in the Event Management System survey where question 20 could be confusing. Question 20 was the first of the implicit social influence questions based on Kim, Jahng et als research on An empirical investigation into the utilization-based information technology success model: integrating task performance and social influence perspective (Kim, Jahng et al. 2007). The possible confusion was from the fact that in the previous 19 questions from the UTAUT research (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003), the word system was replaced by the specific technology in question for this study. In the end, the implicit social influence questions where not modified from the source study which only referred to the software. After discussing this with the IT Director, the researcher agreed this was a possible source of confusion, but it was decided to keep the

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 84 wording unchanged to stay consistent with the earlier Enterprise Project Management survey data. The confusion risk was also mitigated because the technology name is stated on the title, the communications of the survey, and was discussed when the researcher handed the survey to the participant.

Validity of Survey Instrument and Measures

To help ensure this validity of this research, all of the survey questions were based on previous published research and did not require localization. The research sources, any modifications to the questions, and types of participants used are in Table 5 - Survey Instrument Question Sources and Types of Participants. Generally, the questions where used as is or with only minor modifications to improve clarity.
Table 5 - Survey Instrument Question Sources and Types of Participants

Survey Questions

Previous Research Source (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003)

Modifications

Types of Participants

Perceived Usability Questions

Replaced system with specific technology name to clarify question

80 voluntary research analysts using financial research software in financial services industry analysts and 53 mandatory callcenter representatives in retail electronics using contract document management software 80 voluntary research analysts using financial research software in financial services industry analysts and 53 mandatory callcenter representatives in retail electronics using contract document management software 80 voluntary research analysts using financial research software in financial services industry analysts and 53 mandatory callcenter representatives in retail electronics using contract document management software 80 voluntary research analysts using financial research software in financial services industry analysts and 53 mandatory callcenter representatives in retail electronics using contract document management software

Perceived Ease of Use Questions

(Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003)

Replaced system with specific technology name to clarify question

Social Influence

(Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003)

Replaced system with specific technology name to clarify question

Facilitating Conditions

(Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003)

Replaced system with specific technology name to clarify question

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 85 Behavioral Intention (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) Replaced system with specific technology name and replaced <n> with 3 months to clarify question No change 80 voluntary research analysts using financial research software in financial services industry analysts and 53 mandatory callcenter representatives in retail electronics using contract document management software 136 corporate IT users of word-processing software and 126 corporate IT users of computer-mediated communication software in 15 firms 87 employees in one business unit

Implicit Social Influence

(Kim, Jahng et al. 2007)

Network Identification

(Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009)

Created 5 questions using wording for 5 modes from reference to identify 1-3 people the user interacts with on a typical basis

Internal Validity Threats

Validity is the extent that a measure actually measures what it intended to measure. Cook & Campbell define internal validity as the approximate validity with which we can infer that a relationship between two variables is causal or that the absence of a relationship implies the absence of cause (Cook and Campbll 1979). There are seven major threats to internal validity which could lead to incorrect conclusions on the cause and effect of the dependent and independent variables which include history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, selection, statistical regression, and mortality. These are evaluated in more detail in the following seven sections. Of these seven threats, there are some minor concerns of the internal validity due to the history effects of the high-stress and changing environment. History History effects are when certain events could be occurring during the research that could impact the relationship between the variables. In the case of these two new technology pilots there was significant reorganization resulting from a merger happening in parallel, but these reorganization activities did not have formal or stated direct impacts on the contingent or individual acceptance of the Enterprise Project Management System or Event Management System. For example, the funding or expectations of either project were not directly tied to any merger initiatives or decisions. Regardless, this type of a high-stress and rapidly changing environment could impact the perceptions or innovativeness of individuals or the organization.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 86 There was also a continual flow of events and projects in various stages throughout these pilots, which is the business as usual state and it would be expected that these new technology pilots would experience the same challenges regardless of the time of the year.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 87 Maturation Maturation effects would only be a concern if the results are affected by the passage of time. For example if the change in the behavioral intention of the Event Management System over time is caused by the employees being new and becoming better at managing client events overtime. This effect is not expected because almost all the individuals managing the events and projects in the two systems have been working in their professions for 5+ years as project managers, event planners, or operations staff. Testing The testing effects are not a concern in this research because this field experiment did not include a treatment between the first and second surveys. The longitudinal nature was focused on understanding the social networks overtime, not to test the effectiveness of a particular treatment. The testing effects only become significant when the respondents use their experience in filling out the surveys the first time to become more proficient or take a different approach on completing the surveys the second time. Instrumentation Instrumentation effects result from a change in the measuring instrument between pre-testing and post-test. In this research the survey questions stayed the same across the surveys. The significant difference is that most of the post-pilot surveys were online rather than hardcopy surveys. This should not be a significant issue since the formatting, order, and wording where similar. Also, the pre and post-pilot surveys were not statistically intended to measure the effects of a treatment that happens between the tests. Instead each survey is intended to understand the relationship of the antecedents on different dependent variables at that specific time. Selection The selection bias effects are complicated due to the cluster sampling and snowball survey approach, but not concern for this type of social network research as suggested on previous research. Regarding the cluster sampling; essentially the research participants were not randomly selected, but instead were selected using a cluster sampling where the natural group (cluster) was the population within an organization that were participating in a pilot project. This cluster sampling helped ensure the ability to create a representative social network model of the connections of individuals and their interactions regarding the target technology. Selection effects could result from this cluster sampling approach if more employees with higher personal-innovativeness or having roles as formal process owners were being selected more often for technology pilots. In addition to the cluster sampling, understanding the selection bias is further complicated by the use of a snowball survey. For the Event Management System, the self-reported social network connection questions were modified to ask an open ended question in a format that asks for a set number of people who the user interacts with such as List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that have access to information needed for effective use of the Event Registration System (e.g., system features, upcoming releases, demo dates, etc.). This enabled a SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 88 snowball survey approach that lets the original respondents identify other important users that were not part of the initial target sample. As respondents identified additional people they might go to for help or knowledge on the technology, additional surveys were sent to these new respondents. This snowball approach showed that the networks for use of technologies reached outside of the business units; which included technical vendors, clients, colleagues in consulting companies, and even spouses. Self-reporting of social ties is the most common approach to gather network data and survey methods have been shown to be reliable in collecting network data. Since this is a self-reported survey, these are the cognitive networks that are the perceived social relations of an individual, which could be different than the actual social relations (Marsden 1990). Thus, this approach has also been shown to add to the validity because omitting or deletion of boundaries can lead to misleading results (Barnes 1979; Marsden 1990). Erickson also supported this use of snow-ball surveys to uncover the boundaries with self-reported social relations (Erickson 1988). Statistical regression Statistical regression effects result from having participants who are at one extreme of a continuum and do not represent the true cause and effect relationship. To understand the impacts of statistical regression effects, the normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity of the results were reviewed to ensure the validity of the data within the hierarchical regression. Mortality Mortality effects could impact the validity in situations where a significant portion of individuals drop from the test between a pre and post-treatment survey. In this case, this was not an issue because there was not a specific treatment between the pre and post-pilot surveys and very few participants dropped from the study between the surveys. The mortality was also kept low because the majority of the participants, who left the company before the post-pilot surveys, completed the post-pilot surveys online.

External Validity Threats

External validity is focused on ensuring that the research conditions are as close and compatible as possible to a real-world situation. Since this is a field experiment, its external validity is high and can be generalized to other similar organizational settings running pilots for new technologies.

3.4 The longitudinal Study

3.4.1 Location of the Study
The technology acceptance initiatives for this study occurred in a 1200-1500 person company headquarters. The company was privately-held, global marketing company providing sales, marketing and advertising programs for Fortune 1000 clients. It was acquired by a larger publically held company 6 months prior to the first pilot, so these pilots were occurring within the first 18 SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 89 months of this acquisition, so there were significant merger activities going on in during these timeframes. The acquiring company was a larger global marketing and loyalty organization, but for this research the focus was only on the US region. As a full-service marketing company, they are heavy users of new technologies for internal business processes as well as developing and maintaining technology solutions for 50+ clients. The client solutions included consumer loyalty systems, event registration system, travel booking systems, sales/channel incentive programs, and employee engagement systems. Ibarras 1993 research , also in an Marketing / Ad company, describes the dynamic nature of the clients which results in a high pressure culture where a client can end their relationship abruptly and the assurance of employment is weak especially for those working on the client that left (Ibarra 1993). This company was chosen primarily because it was the researchers employer, which gave the researcher both support and additional access to the subjects. The CIO and the Executive Committee at the company have been supportive and open to the idea of research being conducted within the company even after the researcher left the company in January 2011 as an outcome of reorganization resulting from the merger. The role of the researcher in the company was that of an IT Director for client-facing systems in the company and a large part of the researchers role is to continue to improve the ability of the company to roll out new technologies.

3.4.2 Subjects or Participants

The subjects for this research are essentially a cluster sampling of individuals who are adopting the same technology in roughly the same timeline to ensure that the researcher would be able to map the actual network connections of teams and departments. These were longitudinal studies where each participant completed the same survey at an early point in the introduction of the new technology into the organization and at a later point where the subjects and organization have used the technology for a few months. This research was done on actual projects inside of a global marketing company, so it is non-contrived. The unit of analysis was the individuals with additional understanding of dyad or network connections.

3.4.3 Technologies used for the study

Criteria used to select technology pilots used for this study
When looking for new technology acceptance pilot projects that would work within the target organization, two were chosen that met the following criteria: The new technologies would require significant changes in processes These technologies where group technologies, not individual technologies, which meant that the new technologies success is dependent on groups of a user using them, not just a single individual. These technologies were used to accomplish a business objective, not a personal objective. There was a pilot involved prior to a larger roll-out. The groups that would be the subjects are easily accessible by the researcher, which generally meant the users were predominantly in the company headquarters.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 90 The timing for the pilot projects coincided when the researchers availability to conduct the research amongst other work demands. The executive contacts in the company approved of using the technologies as part of the research (CIO, VP HR, relevant department heads). They were centralized initiative with a definite start date so the research and approvals can be planned for and approved by the company executive committee.

Two pilot technologies were chosen for the study that met these criteria; an Enterprise Project Management System and an Event Management System which are summarized in Table 6 Summary of Technologies Used in Study and described in the following two sections. To help categorize these two new technologies or innovations, Damanpour provided a categorization of innovations by classifying them as Administrative Innovations and Technical Innovations. In the case of the Event Management System, it is a technical innovation because it directly related to new products, services and the production process technologies (Damanpour 1987). Alternatively, administrative innovations are more internally focused on internal management, which better describes the Enterprise Project Management System. Damanpour also pointed out that often those with formal authority tend to be more involved in administrative innovations like the Enterprise Project Management, whereas technical innovations such as the Event Management System tend to require more informal network power and centrality.

Enterprise Project Management (EPM) System

The first project that used to collect technology acceptance and social network data was the implementation of an enterprise project management tool, which was piloted by a small team of individuals from the IT organization within the large marketing company in 2010. An Enterprise Project Management System is essentially a consolidated repository for a portfolio of project plans, change records, issues, and risks from many different project managers within an organization. The company wanted the project managers to use Microsoft Project Professional to manage their project plans and store them within Microsoft Project Server where they were consolidated and leveraged a single resource list. Microsoft describes MS Project Server as follows Microsoft Project Server 2010 provides innovative capabilities across the entire lifecycle to help organizations
effectively initiate, select, plan and deliver projects on time and within budget. Enhance productivity and realize results with Project Server 2010.

There was an initial set of 11 users that were participating in the two month pilot. For technology acceptance research, this became an even more intriguing set of data because at the completion of the pilot, it was decided that the Enterprise Project Management tool would not implemented based on the consensus of the pilot group, costs, and the other external factors such as a company merger that put the follow-on phase on hold then eventually cancelled. The fact that this technology was not accepted by the organization makes this an interesting set of data and case study for this research. A second set of survey data was still collected eight months after the first survey from the pilot group to complete the longitudinal data for this relatively small sample size.

Event Management System (EMS)

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 91 The second and larger of the two technology acceptance projects was an Event Management System. This Software-As-A-Service Event Management System was targeted to replace the current 9-year old internally built Event Management System (EMS). Event Management Systems are used by meeting planners for meetings, events, user conferences, and trade-show to manage the registration of participants and their subsequent travel arrangements, activities, sessions, billing, and other event activities. Below is a more detailed description of an Event Management System from Capterra. In January of 2011, there were 193 different commercially available event management systems listed on Capterra. Event Management software automates marketing, registration, coordination and scheduling of events. See More Planners use Event Management applications to manage the planning and process of meetings and events, including marketing, attendee registration, badge creation, calendar generation and venue space management. These applications also offer a variety of self-service functions for event attendees such as online registration, content delivery and fee payment. Event Management software is related to Registration software and Ticketing software (Capterra 2011) The system being piloted, lists the following functionality for their Event Registration System: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Event Registration Event Email Marketing Secure Online Payment Processing Housing and Travel Management Contact Management Event Budget Management Custom Event Websites Event Workflow Management Event Calendar On-Site Functionality Event Reporting Event Data Security 508 Compliance Event Support & Training Professional Services

The current proprietary registration system has been in place for 9 years and supports more than 500 meetings and events annually. There are approximately 150 users of the system that include finance, event planners, call center representatives, onsite staff, attendee data specialists, IT staff, and others. The current custom system and the various user groups have co-adopted over the 9years where the processes, people, and technology have evolved together closely. This resulted in many features or ways of accomplishing tasks of the Event Management System which are designed specifically for the target marketing company and would likely not be found in commercially available systems. The company was comfortable with their current system but was looking into what they should do differently for their registration services to overcome three obstacles and exploit three trends to set SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 92 themselves up for growth in the future. The obstacles with their current registration system was that its costs were no longer competitive, it was lacking competitive services, and switching to a new event registration system would have significant impacts on the staff, clients, and processes. They also recognized that there were three opportunities that presented themselves if they switched to one of the commercially available registration system. First, there were more competitive event registration options available in the market. Second, commercially available EMSs had standard Application Program Interfaces (APIs), which would help them reduce costs and speed up service delivery for their clients that required integrations. Third, the market leading event registration systems had other services that they currently didnt offer their clients, which could al so help grow their business. Overcoming these obstacles and taking advantage of these opportunities is what lead to the decision to assemble a cross-functional team and conduct a two month pilot using 2-3 of the upcoming live events to better prepare for an eventual change from their proprietary registration system. Its important to note that there was some exposure inside the company to four commercially available EMS systems within the marketing company staff because some clients mandated that the marketing company use the clients instance of an EMS that the client had previously used or had already paid for a license.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 93

Table 6 - Summary of Technologies Used in Study

Technology Acceptance Projects Event Management System (EMS) Enterprise Project Management

Typical Participants

Population Size for pilot

Pilot Project Description

Event Planners, IT Staff, Contact Center Reps, Financial Staff,

40-60

Replace 9 year old internal proprietary system with commercially available system

Project Teams, Program Managers, Project Manager Consultants

10-15

Implement centralized enterprise portfolio management services for project managers

3.5 Summary
This chapter described the Design and Methodology that was used to adequately answer the four research questions and provided enough guidance to duplicate this study by a knowledgeable researcher. This chapter started by describing the hypothesis development and key variables and how they help answer the research questions. This was then followed by the research design section which addressed the types of sample and sample size, survey instrument and measures, data collection process, data analysis, validity issues, and reliability issues. Next, the longitudinal study section described the location of the study, subjects, and technologies used for the study. Chapter 4 presents the results of the two technology acceptance initiatives based on this design and methodology.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 94

CHAPTER 4 - DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a systematic analysis of the data collected during the research. The data analysis chapter starts with three sections to look at the data management prior to entry, the initial data analysis for suitability, and reliability for the different loadings. These sections are followed by the descriptive statistics and correlations. Following the correlation analysis is the regression analysis to determine the explanatory power of the different models via hierarchical regressions. The core statistical analysis is focused on testing the research questions and hypothesis using exploratory factor analysis to provide an understanding of the loading and determine if any factors need to be combined to their underlying dimensions, then using the Pearson Correlation Coefficient to understand the linear association between the variables. The statistical analysis is then completed with the analysis using multiple regression analysis to determine the adjusted R2 of each model to understand the predictability of each model. In addition to the core statistical analysis, this chapter also reviews the social networking and social network analysis results to provide more insight into the data and answer the research questions. These include analyzing the coping and influencing social network graphs for the two technologies as well as mapping of the UTAUT responses to the social network graphs. This chapter then has a section devoted to the conclusions of the research hypothesis. The last section is a summary of the chapter.

4.2 Data Management prior to entry

For the data management prior to data entry, there was a validation of the questionnaire data for missing data. There were not any missing answers in the paper or electronic surveys for the scaled questions, but there were significant gaps in the social network data which is expected in responses for questions such as List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you get help from for effective use of the Event Registration System. The pre-pilot surveys were distributed in paper format along with the participant consent forms, but the post-pilot surveys were online surveys which forced entries for all non-social network data. Upon data entry, a check of a sampling of the data was done to ensure the raw data is categorized correctly and entered into the statistical program correctly.

4.3 Initial data analysis for suitability

The initial data analysis focuses on checking the quality of the data look for intervening or controlling variables such as gender using the basic statistical descriptive values and looking for outliers. For the statistics, this research uses a pairwise deletion rather than Listwise so as to not eliminate cases that do not have a full set of data, which happens in about a third of the cases for various reasons such as an individual who completed a pre-pilot survey, but did not complete a post-pilot survey. This individual might still have data for the post-pilot case such as a centrality which is calculated based on how the other network nodes identified them with coping and influencing connections. SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 95

4.4 Reliability / Loadings (Pooled for all projects & times)

4.4.1 Internal Consistency Reliability
Reliability is often defined as the extent to which a measure is free of random measurement error (Smithson 2005; Tharenou, Donohue et al. 2007). These 24 questions were coded as interval scales of measurement rather than ordinal. This is commonly done provided there are five or more response categories and the underlying construct is conceptualized as theoretically continuous (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001; Tharenou, Donohue et al. 2007). The internal consistency reliability validates that items are consistent with each other and typically is measured by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Table 7 contains the Cronbachs Alphas for this data. The results show that the behavioral intention and implicit social influence of .90 or higher which is considered highly reliable. Performance Expectancies are higher than .70, showing a fair reliability, but the Facilitating Conditions at .625 is below the .70 threshold indicating a fair reliability (Nunnally 1978; Tharenou, Donohue et al. 2007). Poor reliability weakens the effect size and limits our ability to detect relationships between variables, which make the Cronbachs Alpha of .625 for Facilitating Conditions more vulnerable to this risk. In this research there werre not significant relationships between the network measures and the facilitating conditions, so this does not impact any significant results.
Table 7 - Reliability Statistics

Performance Expectancy Effort Expectancy Social Influence Facilitating Conditions Behavioral Intention Implicit Social Influence

Cronbach's Alpha .860 .840 .790 .625 .987 .907

N of Items 4 4 4 4 3 5

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 96

4.4.1 Covariance between Independent Variables and Behavioral Intention

Validity is simply the extent that a question measures what its supposed to. For this research, the reliability and validity was also checked for the organizational or individual parameters that could be the hidden source of variance using a Type III test of Fixed Effects and Estimate of Covariance within SPSS to ensure we were measuring the correct measure. This included department, technology, company, and role which are shown in table 8 through table 11. From Table 8 - Estimates of Fixed Effects for Covariance between Company and Behavioral Intention, the average Behavioral Intention was 5.66 and is statistically significant. From the Estimates of Covariance Parameters, the estimated variance of the intercept is .20 and the estimated residual is 3.95, with only the residual as significant. This indicates that there is little discernible or statistically significant variation between companies. In running this same scenario for role as a nesting variables yielded similar results.
Table 8 - Estimates of Fixed Effects for Covariance between Company and Behavioral Intention

Parameter Estimate

Std. Error

Df

t 7.636

Sig. .027

Intercept 5.655556 .740691 1.670 a. Dependent Variable: Behavioral Intention.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 1.780931 9.530182

Table 9 - Estimates of Covariance Parameters for Covariance between Company and Behavioral Intention

Parameter Residual Intercept [subject = Company]

Estimate

Std. Error Wald Z

Sig. .000 .511

3.951923 .630707 6.266 Variance 1.016137 1.544468 .658

95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper 2.890420 5.403261 Bound Bound .051663 19.986118

a. Dependent Variable: Behavioral Intention.

Table 10 Estimates of Fixed Effects for Covariance between Role and Behavioral Intention

Parameter Estimate

Std. Error

Df

t 18.129

Sig. .000

Intercept 4.887560 .269596 4.776 a. Dependent Variable: Behavioral Intention .

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 4.184654 5.590466

Table 11 Estimates of Covariance Parameters for Covariance between Role and Behavioral Intention

Parameter Residual

Estimate

Std. Error Wald Z 5.840

Sig. .000

3.984840 .682346

95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper 2.848755 5.573997 Bound Bound

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 97 Intercept [subject = Variance .193221 .421033 Role] a. Dependent Variable: Behavioral Intention. .459 .646 .002699 13.830490

4.5 Descriptive Statistics

4.5.1 Frequencies
Table 12 through 17 provides an overview of the frequencies of participants in terms of department, company, location, technologies, and experience with the technology. The largest groups of participants in the research are from the marketing company IT department and the business operations groups.
Table 12 Department Frequencies of Participants Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid EPM Vendor IT E&E IT Loyalty IT Exec IT Participation - Reg/Data Participation Trainer Participation - Air/Cust Program Management Registration System Vendor Client A Participant Management Transportation Client Services Exec Finance Total Missing System Total 10 25 10 2 19 14 2 12 5 9 1 2 2 7 2 122 10 132 7.6 18.9 7.6 1.5 14.4 10.6 1.5 9.1 3.8 6.8 .8 1.5 1.5 5.3 1.5 92.4 7.6 100.0 8.2 20.5 8.2 1.6 15.6 11.5 1.6 9.8 4.1 7.4 .8 1.6 1.6 5.7 1.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 8.2 28.7 36.9 38.5 54.1 65.6 67.2 77.0 81.1 88.5 89.3 91.0 92.6 98.4 100.0

Table 13 Company Frequencies of Participants Frequency Valid Marketing Company Event Management System Vendor EPM Consulting Vendor Client of Marketing Company Other Total Missing System 102 9 10 1 6 128 4 Percent Valid Percent 77.3 6.8 7.6 .8 4.5 97.0 3.0 79.7 7.0 7.8 .8 4.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 79.7 86.7 94.5 95.3 100.0

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 98

Frequency Valid Marketing Company Event Management System Vendor EPM Consulting Vendor Client of Marketing Company Other Total Missing System Total 102 9 10 1 6 128 4 132 Percent Valid Percent 77.3 6.8 7.6 .8 4.5 97.0 3.0 100.0 79.7 7.0 7.8 .8 4.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 79.7 86.7 94.5 95.3 100.0

Table 14 Location Frequencies for Participants Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid Detroit Minneapolis - Suite E North Minneapolis - Suite E South Minneapolis - Suite H Minneapolis - Suite C Minneapolis - Suite F EPM Vendor Office Minneapolis Event Registration System Vendor Office DC Other Total Missing System Total 3 20 18 55 4 2 9 9 2 122 10 132 2.3 15.2 13.6 41.7 3.0 1.5 6.8 6.8 1.5 92.4 7.6 100.0 2.5 16.4 14.8 45.1 3.3 1.6 7.4 7.4 1.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 2.5 18.9 33.6 78.7 82.0 83.6 91.0 98.4 100.0

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 99

Table 15 Technology Frequency for Participants Frequency Valid Event Registration System Enterprise Project Management Total 81 51 132 Percent 61.4 38.6 100.0 Valid Percent 61.4 38.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 61.4 100.0

Table 16 Age Frequencies for Participants Frequency Valid 25 or less 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 Missing Total Total System 2 15 22 40 8 87 45 132 Percent 1.5 11.4 16.7 30.3 6.1 65.9 34.1 100.0 Valid Percent 2.3 17.2 25.3 46.0 9.2 100.0 Cumulative Percent 2.3 19.5 44.8 90.8 100.0

Table 17 Experience Frequencies for Participants Frequency Valid Pre-Pilot Post Pilot (2+ months after start) Missing Total Total System 67 64 131 1 132 Percent 50.8 48.5 99.2 .8 100.0 Valid Percent 51.1 48.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 51.1 100.0

4.5.2 Descriptive Statistics for Factors

Table 18 shows the overall pooled statistics for this study. 41% of the respondents were male, with the remaining female and the average age was 45 years old. The original UTAUT factors (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003), the coping Network Neighbors PE, and the influence coping Network Neighbors PE are presented in their 7-point Likert scales, but the voluntariness, normalized actual use, normalized coping centrality and normalized influence centrality are normalized so their values are between 0 and 1.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 100

Table 18 - Descriptive Statistics for Factors (Pooled)

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Deviation Age 89 21 61 44.77 9.521 Male or Female 123 0 1 .41 .495 Voluntariness of Use 81 0 1 .31 .465 Performance 81 1 7 4.17 1.432 Social Influence 81 2 7 4.72 1.248 Expectancy Effort Expectancy 81 3 7 5.31 1.066 Facilitating 81 2 7 4.72 1.111 Behavioral 1 7 4.89 2.036 Conditions Intention 81 Implicit Social 81 1.00 7.00 3.1432 1.54765 Normalized Actual 70 .000 1.000 .35114 .415412 Influence Normalized Coping 111 .000 .708 .03918 .096567 Use Centrality Normalized Influence Centrality Coping Network Neighbors PE Influence Network Neighbors PE Valid N (listwise) 108 66 68 45 .000 1.50 1.50 .683 6.50 6.25 .03817 .097439 4.4713 .95729 4.5014 1.02687

Skewness Statistic Std. -.473 .255 Error .351 .218 .844 .267 -.363 .267 .023 .267 -.293 .267 -.032 .267 -.534 .267 .295 .267 .534 .287 3.947 .229 4.087 -.393 -.562 .233 .295 .291

Kurtosis Statistic Std. -.355 .506 Error -1.908 .433 -1.321 .529 -.355 .529 -.470 .529 -.594 .529 -.469 .529 -.934 .529 -.788 .529 -1.503 .566 21.102 .455 20.255 .461 .759 .285 .582 .574

Tables 19 and 20 provide the descriptive statistics of both the pre-pilot results and post-pilot results for the Event Management System pilot. For this technology pilot the majority of the respondents were women, 63%, and the average age was 45. This project was unable to reach its initial goals and cant be considered a success, which is also shown in table 19 and 20 in the form of dropping results. The performance expectancy dropped from 4.13 to 3.74, which swayed it from an overall positive impression to a negative impression that this technology will help the participants do their job. The behavioral intention also dropped from 5.15 to 4.70 between the pre and post pilot results. In conjunction to these drops the Normalized Actual Use also dropped from .31 to .262 and the Average Coping and Influencing Centralities dropped as well which is further explored in the Social Networks later in this chapter due to the fragmentation of the coping network. Alternatively and somewhat surprisingly, the Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Implicit Social Influence, and Facilitating Conditions rose significantly. Lastly, the average performance expectancies of the neighbors also dropped in accordance with the drops in the performance expectancies.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 101

Table 19 Descriptive Statistics for Factors (EMS Pre-Pilot)

Age Male or Female (0:Female, 1 Male) Voluntariness of Use ( Performance Expectancy Social Influence Effort Expectancy Facilitating Conditions Behavioral Intention Implicit Social Influence Normalized Actual Use Normalized Coping Centrality Normalized Influence Centrality Coping Network Neighbors PE Influence Network Neighbors PE Valid N (listwise)

N 35 41 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 25 43 42 32 32 21

Minimum Maximum 31 61 0 1 0 1 1 7 2 7 3 7 2 7 1 7 1.00 7.00 .000 1.000 .000 .280 .000 .352 2.50 5.75 2.50 6.25

Mean 44.50 .32 .29 4.13 4.52 5.11 4.39 5.15 3.0000 .31040 .03147 .03619 4.5424 4.4506

Std. Deviation 9.762 .471 .458 1.477 1.099 .963 1.104 1.898 1.46408 .360491 .064726 .080405 .77592 .86391

Table 20 Descriptive Statistics for Factors (EMS Post-Pilot)

Age Male or Female Voluntariness of Use Performance Expectancy Social Influence Effort Expectancy Facilitating Conditions Behavioral Intention Implicit Social Influence Normalized Actual Use Normalized Coping Centrality Normalized Influence Centrality Coping Network Neighbors PE Influence Network Neighbors PE Valid N (listwise)

N 27 35 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 34 29 23 17 14

Minimum 31 0 0 1 3 3 3 2 1.00 .000 .000 .000 1.50 1.50

Maximum 61 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 6.00 1.000 .257 .175 6.25 5.63

Mean 44.57 .37 .23 3.74 4.77 5.17 4.70 4.82 3.2462 .26231 .03368 .01845 3.9910 3.8085

Std. Deviation 8.884 .490 .430 1.431 1.328 1.079 1.070 1.826 1.57308 .358980 .070444 .037551 1.05439 1.10612

Tables 21 and 22 provide the descriptive statistics of both the pre-pilot results and post-pilot results for the Enterprise Project Management pilot. For this technology pilot 52% of the respondents were male, and the average respondent age was 46. This project also was canceled shortly after the pilot, which should show a drop in many measures. In this case, the post-pilot surveys were approximately 6-8 months after the initial survey, so the post-pilot results are several months after SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 102 the completion of the initial pilot. The performance expectancy dropped from 4.95 to 4.61, which was not as significant of a drop as the Event Management System between the pre and post-pilot surveys. The behavioral intention also dropped from 5.97 to 2.78 between the pre and post pilot results which would be expected as the project was cancelled after the pilot. In parallel with the drops in Performance Expectancy and Behavioral Intention, the Normalized Actual Use also dropped from .818 to .125, which was expected because the resources working on the pilot used the Enterprise Project Management System during the pilot, but most didnt have access to it after the pilot was cancelled. Unlike the Event Management System project, the Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Implicit Social Influence, and Facilitating Conditions dropped in parallel with the other factors. Lastly, the average performance expectancies of ones neighbors appeared to rise, but this was a false result because there were so few connections left in the network and the only remaining connected neighbors where the EPM consulting vendor resources that likely were still using EPM tools with their other clients.
Table 21 Descriptive Statistics for Factors (EPM Pre-Pilot)

N Age 14 Male or Female 23 Voluntariness of Use 11 Performance Expectancy 11 Social Influence 11 Effort Expectancy 11 Facilitating Conditions 11 Behavioral Intention 11 Implicit Social Influence 11 Normalized Actual Use 11 Normalized Coping Centrality 21 Normalized Influence 22 Coping Network Neighbors 8 Centrality Influence Network 12 PE Valid N (listwise) 8 Neighbors PE

Minimum 21 0 0 3 5 4 4 3 1.00 .000 .000 .000 4.50 4.50

Maximum 61 1 1 6 7 7 7 7 5.20 1.000 .271 .400 5.42 5.75

Mean 45.50 .52 .18 4.95 5.77 5.93 5.48 5.97 3.8545 .81818 .04719 .05641 4.9896 5.1790

Std. Deviation 10.190 .511 .405 .886 .918 1.031 .997 1.494 1.41730 .404520 .101039 .111304 .35558 .43728

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 103

Table 22 Descriptive Statistics for Factors (EPM Post-Pilot)

Age Male or Female Voluntariness of Use Performance Expectancy Social Influence Effort Expectancy Facilitating Conditions Behavioral Intention Implicit Social Influence Normalized Actual Use Normalized Coping Centrality Normalized Influence Coping Network Neighbors Centrality Influence Network Neighbor PE Valid N (listwise) s PE

N 13 24 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 13 15 3 7 2

Minimum 21 0 0 2 2 3 4 1 1.00 .000 .000 .000 5.29 3.25

Maximum 61 1 1 7 6 7 7 7 6.40 1.000 .708 .683 6.50 6.25

Mean 45.12 .54 .78 4.61 4.03 5.72 5.11 2.78 2.5333 .12500 .06615 .05507 6.0120 5.2544

Std. Deviation 10.500 .509 .441 1.480 1.277 1.221 .961 2.444 1.83303 .353553 .197374 .174876 .64104 1.16264

4.5.3 Normality, Linearity, and Homoscedasticity

Three assumptions used in analysis of variances are the Normality, Linearity, and Homoscedasticity. This study validates the normality assumption of univariate normality using Kurtosis and skewness which are shown in table 18 for the pooled data (Wilkinson and (TFSI) 1999). For normality, we expect the absolute value of Kurtosis should be less than 5, and the absolute value of skewness should be less than 2. In reviewing the Kurtosis and Skewness of the pooled data in

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 104 Table 18 - Descriptive Statistics for Factors (Pooled), the assumption of normality is validated for all the factors with the exception of the Normalized Influence Centrality and Normalized Coping Centrality. To validate the linearity assumption of the data, this research used a manual inspection of data the plot to validate that its generally linear and not obviously non-linear. Violation of the linearity assumption weakens power of the statistical test to detect an effect, but does not invalidate the results (Wilkinson and (TFSI) 1999; Tharenou, Donohue et al. 2007). Linearity can be seen in the significant relationships of this study as shown in the following plots: Figure 13 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of Performance Expectancy and Behavioral Intention, Figure 14 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of an individuals Influence Network Neighbors Performance Expectancy and their own Performance, Figure 15 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of an individuals Influence Network Neighbors Performance Expectancy and their own Use Behavior, Figure 16 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of an individuals Coping Network Neighbors Performance Expectancy and their own Performance Expectancy, and Figure 17 Plot of Linear Curve Fit Normalized Coping Centrality and their own Effort Expectancy. The final validation is the assumption of homoscedasticity which is checking the variability of different scores is roughly the same at all values. Pearson's correlation coefficient and multiple regressions assume homoscedasticity of data because they compare means of independent groups. This validation was also done by a manual check based on the generated bivariate scatter plots of variable combinations and check to see that scores do not disperse as they move up or down each scale. If homoscedasticity is significantly violated, a researcher can adopt a more conservative alpha criterion such as .025 for moderate heteroscedasticity and .01 for severe heteroscedasticity in tests of statistical significance (Wilkinson and (TFSI) 1999; Tharenou, Donohue et al. 2007). The factors that are concerning in terms of homoscedasticity is the Normalized Coping Centrality as shown in Figure 17 Plot of Linear Curve Fit Normalized Coping Centrality and their own Effort Expectancy. This is consistent with the centrality data also violating the assumptions of normality and should be taken into account in any hypothesis relating to centrality. The remaining factors appear to validate the assumption as homoscedasticity as was checked in the significant relationships of this study using the plots in Figure 13 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of Performance Expectancy and Behavioral Intention, Figure 14 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of an individuals Influence Network Neighbors Performance Expectancy and their own Performance, Figure 15 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of an individuals Influence Network Neighbors Performance Expectancy and their own Use Behavior, and Figure 16 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of an individuals Coping Network Neighbors Performance Expectancy and their own Performance Expectancy.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 105

Figure 13 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of Performance Expectancy and Behavioral Intention

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 106

Figure 14 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of an individuals Influence Network Neighbors Performance Expectancy and their own Performance

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 107

Figure 15 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of an individuals Influence Network Neighbors Performance Expectancy and their own Use Behavior

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 108

Figure 16 Plot of Linear Curve Fit of an individuals Coping Network Neighbors Performance Expectancy and their own Performance Expectancy

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 109

Figure 17 Plot of Linear Curve Fit Normalized Coping Centrality and their own Effort Expectancy

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 110

4.6 Inter-Correlations among Study Variables

The relationship strength and direction between the continuous variables were calculated using the Pearsons correlation coefficient which is shown in Table 23. These are squared to determine the shared variance. When looking at the relationship strength between the variables, this study followed the rule of thumb that r=.10 indicates a small effect, .30 indicates a medium effect, and .50 indicates a large effect size. (Tharenou, Donohue et al. 2007) To avoid computational and interpretational problems with multiple regressions, this study also validated the assumption of absence of multi-collinearity through the check of the bivariate correlations using Pearsons correlation coefficients. Based on the correlations in table 23, there were three correlations that exceed .70 that were suspect of multiple-collinearity; specifically the Influencing Network Centrality correlated highly with the Coping Network Centrality, the Coping Network Neighbors PE correlated with the Influencing Network Neighbors PE, and the Facilitating Conditions with Effort Expectancy. The correlations between the two centrality measures and two Average PE of an individuals Neighbors could be an indication that the Influencing and Coping Networks are likely made up of many of the same individuals, but in prior research they were treated separately. The correlation between the Facilitating Conditions and Effort Expectancy was only .707, yet these are well-researched factors, so no action was taken to avoid multi-collinearity. Based on these results, it was decided to not drop any variables, which often is the solution if two independent variables were correlated higher than .70. More specifically, it would indicate that they may have collinearity and the least theoretically defensible one would be dropped (Wilkinson and (TFSI) 1999). There were nine notable observations from this correlation analysis that are discussed in the following sections which either confirmed existing UTAUT findings or brought new insight from the combination of UTAUT variables with social network variables.

Network centrality correlated to Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, & Facilitating Conditions
Both the influencing and coping network centrality measures are significantly correlated to Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, and Facilitating Conditions. These were small-effect correlations between .250-.280 with a significance of .05. These five factors share a common theme of relating to an individuals access to other resources and people which enable ease of use and remove obstacles to using a technology.

An individuals Performance Expectancy is correlated with their Neighbors Performance Expectancy.

An individuals Performance Expectancy is correlated with their Neighbors Performance Expectancy. These were large-effect correlations at the .01 significance level. The importance of this correlation is at the center of this research because it bridges the most important factor in UTAUT, Performance Expectancy, to other individuals within their informal networks. This could indicate significant influence by others in the networks, but it needs to be evaluated within the later regression analysis SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 111 to determine if there are any underlying reasons for this correlation such as particular departments being very homogenous.

An individuals Facilitating Conditions is correlated to the average Performance Expectancy of their neighbors.
The neighbors average performance expectancy for both coping and influencing networks are highly correlated positively to their responses on Facilitating Conditions. This is a medium effect correlation at the .05 confidence level for the coping network and the .01 confidence level for the influencing network. This could suggest that with higher Performance Expectancy of ones neighbors, the more we feel that we have access to Facilitating Conditions to help us use the new technology or innovation.

An individuals Behavioral Intention and Usage is correlated to their neighbors average Performance Expectancy.
The neighbors average performance expectancy is positively correlated to the Behavioural Intention and Usage Behaviour as a medium effect at the .05 significance level or better. This could just be the result of an antecedent chain of Neighbor Performance Expectancy to Individual Performance Expectancy to Behavior Intention to Usage.

Implicit Social Influence or Social Influence measures are NOT correlated to the Average Performance Expectancy of ones neighbors.
This lack of a significant correlation of either the Implicit Social Influence or Social Influence measures with the Average Performance Expectancy of an individuals Neighbors is surprising. One might expect that if an individuals colleagues, subordinates, supervisors, and other important individuals are frequently using a new technology, they might also expect these to be connections in their informal networks and have positive Performance Expectancy. This is not the case, which could indicate that an individuals Performance Expectancy is not influenced by their Neighbors usage of a system, but instead is only influenced if their neighbors feel the system has utility (PE) and helps them do their job better. This could be a factor in why Social Influence and Implicit Social influence measures have traditionally not been a large contributor to Behavioral Intention because the social measures are focused on usage, not perceptions of utility.

The Influence and Coping Networks are highly correlated

The Influencing and Coping Networks are highly collinear as shown by their large-effect correlations at the .01 significance level for both the Centrality and Average Neighbors Performance Expectancy measures. As discussed earlier, a researcher might drop one of the networks if this was only a quantitative study, but there are significant differences in reviewing the social network graphs in terms of power within these two networks, so they are not combined.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 112

Average Neighbor Performance Expectancy is more correlated to TAM factors then Centrality Measures
When looking at the correlations between the Network measures and the UTAUT measures, the Average Neighbor Performance Expectancy measures have more significant and larger effect correlations then the Centrality measures. This could suggest that network neighborhoods play a larger role in UTAUT then network position.

Neighbors Performance Expectancy is correlated to a users Department

Another noticeable correlation is between the users Department and the Average Neighbors Performance Expectancy. This is a medium effect correlation at a .01 significance level. This could have resulted from resources within a department being more likely to be connected within a network and having tendency to be homogenous in their perceptions.

Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, and Facilitating Conditions are correlated with Department
Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Facilitating Conditions have medium-effect correlations with the individuals Department. This can be expected because the individuals within each department could be impacted by a new technology similarly, have common experience and comfort levels with the previous technology, or have similar access to resources to help the use a new technology. The most important result from this correlation is that the analysis needs to account for the Department impacts early in the hierarchical regression before we can draw any conclusions on the other variables.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 113

Table 23 Correlation Matrix
Cp Neighbors PE 1 66 .865** 0 57 68 1 Inf Neighbors PE Inf Cent

Voluntariness of Use

1 81 0.105 1 124 0.028 0.798 89 -.326** 0.003 81 -.382** 0 81 -0.182 0.104 81 -.324** 0.003 81 -0.049 0.666 81 -0.063 0.575 81 -0.209 0.082 70 -0.164 0.099 103 -0.144 0.144 105 -.422** 0 66 -.469** 0 89 -0.185 0.098 81 -0.186 0.097 81 0.037 0.746 81 -.236* 0.034 81 -0.095 0.4 81 -0.016 0.886 81 -.301* 0.011 70 -0.061 0.581 84 0.005 0.963 84 -0.21 0.105 61 -0.146 0.242 81 .663** 0 81 .551** 0 81 .649** 0 81 .567** 0 81 .463** 0 81 .463** 0 70 0.161 0.155 80 0.14 0.216 80 .470** 0 60 .592** 0 81 .475** 0 81 .707** 0 81 .425** 0 81 0.204 0.068 81 .417** 0 70 .279* 0.012 80 .255* 0.022 80 .400** 0.002 60 .455** 0 81 .523** 0 81 .638** 0 81 .530** 0 81 .462** 0 70 .273* 0.014 80 .263* 0.018 80 0.21 0.108 60 0.125 0.318 81 .456** 0 81 .388** 0 81 .438** 0 70 .271* 0.015 80 .264* 0.018 80 .289* 0.025 60 .370** 0.002 66 81 .369** 0.001 81 .613** 0 70 0.151 0.181 80 0.167 0.138 80 .370** 0.004 60 .244* 0.049 66 81 .367** 0.002 70 0.021 0.851 80 0.05 0.661 80 0.144 0.273 60 0.139 0.264 66 70 0.181 0.137 69 0.15 0.219 69 .344* 0.014 50 .279* 0.037 56 108 .887** 0 99 0.108 0.403 62 0.024 0.848 67 111 0.007 0.955 66 -0.034 0.782 67 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.351 81 0.001

Department

Age

0.99 81 -0.127 0.263 80 -0.003 0.978 80 -.268* 0.016 80 -0.056 0.623 80 -.426** 0 80 -0.163 0.148 80 -.509** 0 69 -0.168 0.137 80 -0.194 0.085 80 -0.082 0.532 60 0.021 0.87

Performanc e Expectancy Effort Expectancy

Social Influence

Facilitating Conditions

Behavioral Intention Implicit Social Influence Normalized Actual Use Normalized Influence Centrality Normalized Coping Centrality Coping Neighbors PE Influence Neighbors PE

65 68 66 66 66 66 Contents of each cell contains Pearson Correlation, Sig. (2-tailed), N *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4.7 Multiple Regression

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

CpCent

Vlntr

Dept

Age

Use

EE

FC

ISI

PE

BI

SI

Benjamin Leonard Page 114 This section presents the results the five hierarchical regressions to evaluate the significance of the main research factors and the traditional UTAUT factors on behavioral intention, usage behavior, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and facilitating conditions. When looking at the UTAUT factors, the regressions focus only on the direct impacts in order to validate that they are consistent with prior research, but not recreate all the analysis on moderating factors that are involved in UTAUT (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) Multiple regressions are the most common way in business research to understand the extent of multiple independent variables on the dependent variable of Behavioral Intention, Use Behavior, and others (Tharenou, Donohue et al. 2007). In this research, where the participants are from the same workgroups, there is a significant risk drawing inaccurate conclusion resulting from autocorrelation of data due to the dependence between respondents. To mitigate this risk, this study used a hierarchical regression to validate that the potential second or third level fixed or random factors are not significant drivers of variance by initially entering the demographic variables and work environment factors. Specifically, the study will initially be looking at time (experience), gender, department, technology, voluntariness, company, and role. After these, the variance from relevant UTAUT variables will be evaluated, and only then the study evaluates the impact of the social network variables of coping network centrality, influence network centrality, coping neighbors average PE, and influencing neighbors average PE. The hierarchical regression uses pairwise deletion as opposed to listwise within SPSS to not eliminate cases that have incomplete data. The definition of pairwise deletion within SPSS is as follows: Delete cases with missing values pairwise. Each correlation coefficient is computed using cases with complete data for the pair of variables correlated. If INCLUDE is also specified, only cases with system-missing values are deleted pairwise (IBM 2009) The methods used are not stepwise but add via forced entry, where the variables specified are entered in order in which variables are entered by specifying the variables on multiple METHOD=ENTER subcommands within SPSS 19. A stepwise method is also possible here, but could yield better but potentially misleading results based on chance because it eliminates any predictors that do not significantly explain the dependent variable. As suggested by Thompson Stepwise regression is essentially a fishing expedition, which capitalizes too much on chance and therefore should not be used for hypothesis testing (Thompson 1995)

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 115

4.7.1 Hierarchical Regression Results for Behavioral Intention

Table 24 presents the analysis of variance results for the pooled data from both the Event Management System study and Enterprise Project Management study, including both the pre and post pilot data. The hierarchical regression uses pairwise deletion as opposed to listwise within SPSS to not eliminate cases that have incomplete data. The dependent variable is Behavioral Intention of the users. This regression initially looks at the demographical and organizational factors of Department, Gender, Technology (EMS or EPM), Experience (pre or post-pilot), Age, and voluntariness. This is done first to eliminate the variance from these predictors so as to not overstate the explained variance from the remaining UTAUT and social network predictors. Next this analysis evaluates the explained variance for Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy and Social Influence since they are the traditional UTAUT predictors of Behavioral intention. After the explained variance from the UTAUT variables are accounted for, then the study evaluates the impact of the social network variables of a users Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Coping Network Centrality, and Influence Network Centrality, The table presents the R (Pearsons correlation coefficient), R2, Adjusted R2, Standard Error and the change statistics which include the R2 and the statistical significance of the change using an f-test. For this study we are primarily focused on the Adjusted R2 because it accounts for the addition of so many variables by decreasing the degrees of freedom as to incorrectly gain explanatory power by combining more and more predictors. In reviewing the results of the demographical and organizational factors of Department, Gender, Technology (EMS or EPM), Experience (pre or post-pilot), Age, and voluntariness there are two factors that could have a significant role. Experience explained 6.5% change in Behavioral Intention based on its change in R2, but it was only significant at a .062 level. Voluntariness explained 13.1% change in Behavioral Intention based on its change in R2 which was significant at a .005 level. In reviewing the results of the UTAUT factors of Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy and Social Influence there are two factors that could have a significant role. Performance Expectancy explained 25.8% change in Behavioral Intention with a .000 significance level. Social Influence also explained 8.3% change in Behavioral Intention with a .003 significance level. In reviewing the results of the social network factors of Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Coping Network Centrality, and Influence Network Centrality, there are two factors that could have a significant role. Coping Network Neighbors PE explained 3.2% change in Behavioral Intention with a .048 significance level. Influence Network Neighbors PE, also explained 2.4% change in Behavioral Intention but with only a .080 significance level.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 116

Table 24 - Hierarchical Regression Results for Behavioral Intention Adjusted R Std. Error of Change Statistics R Square F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change Square the Estimate a 1 .049b .002 -.016 2.052 .002 .130 1 55 .719 Change 2 .049 .002 -.035 2.071 .000 .000 1 54 .993 c 3 .211 .044 -.010 2.046 .042 2.327 1 53 .133 d 4 .327 .107 .038 1.997 .062 3.636 1 52 .062 e 5 .337 .113 .026 2.009 .007 .374 1 51 .543 f 6 .495 .245 .154 1.872 .131 8.700 1 50 .005 g 7 .709 .503 .432 1.534 .258 25.456 1 49 .000 h 8 .728 .530 .451 1.508 .027 2.738 1 48 .105 i 9 .783 .613 .539 1.382 .083 10.118 1 47 .003 j 10 .803 .645 .568 1.338 .032 4.140 1 46 .048 11 .818k .669 .588 1.307 .024 3.210 1 45 .080 l 12 .818 .669 .579 1.321 .000 .039 1 44 .845 m 13 .826 .682 .585 1.311 .013 1.704 1 43 .199 a. Predictors: (Constant), Department b. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female c. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology d. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience e. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age f. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use g. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Performance Expectancy h. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy i. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy , Social Influence j. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy , Social Influence , Coping Network Neighbors PE k. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy , Social Influence , Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE l. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy , Social Influence , Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Normalized Coping Centrality m. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy , Social Influence , Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Normalized Coping Centrality, Normalized Influence Centrality Model R R Square

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 117

4.7.2 Hierarchical Regressions Results for System Use

Table 25 presents the analysis of variance results for the pooled data from both the Event Management System study and Enterprise Project Management study, including both the pre and post pilot data. The hierarchical regression uses pairwise deletion as opposed to listwise within SPSS to not eliminate cases that have incomplete data. The dependent variable is System Use. This regression initially looks at the demographical and organizational factors of Department, Gender, Technology (EMS or EPM), Experience (pre or postpilot), Age, and voluntariness. This is done first to eliminate the variance from these predictors so as to not overstate the explained variance from the remaining UTAUT and social network predictors. Next this analysis evaluates the explained variance for Behavioral Intention and Facilitating Conditions because they are the traditional UTAUT predictors of Behavioral intention. After the explained variance from the UTAUT variables are accounted for, then the study evaluates the impact of the social network variables of a users Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Coping Network Centrality, and Influence Network Centrality, , The table presents the R (Pearsons correlation coefficient), R2, Adjusted R2, Standard Error and the change statistics which include the R2 and the statistical significance of the change using an f-test. For this study we are primarily focused on the Adjusted R2 because it accounts the addition of so many variables by decreasing the degrees of freedom as to incorrectly gain explanatory power by combining more and more predictors. In reviewing the results of the demographical and organizational factors of Department, Gender, Technology (EMS or EPM), Experience (pre or post-pilot), Age, and voluntariness there was three factors that could have a significant role. Experience explained 8.9% change in System Use based on its change in R2, with a .034 significance level. Age explained 9.9% change in System Use based on its change in R2, with a .020 significance level. Voluntariness explained 34.7% change in System Use based on its change in R2, with a .000 significance level. In reviewing the results of the UTAUT factors of Behavioral Intention and Facilitating Conditions there was only factor that could have a significant role. Behavioral Intention explained 13.6% change in System Use with a .000 significance level. In reviewing the results of the social network factors of Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Coping Network Centrality, and Influence Network Centrality, none of these factors had a significant role on System Use.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 118

Table 25 Hierarchical Regressions Results for System Use Change Statistics Model R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .209a .209b c .261 .397d e .506 f .777 g .860 h .862 i .863 j .863 .864k l .865 Adjusted R R Square Square .044 .044 .068 .157 .256 .603 .739 .743 .745 .745 .747 .748 .024 .003 .007 .082 .172 .548 .696 .693 .688 .680 .674 .667 Std. Error of R Square the Estimate Change .410410 .414753 .413909 .397932 .378071 .279369 .229116 .230244 .232206 .234945 .237221 .239844 .044 .000 .024 .089 .099 .347 .136 .004 .002 .000 .002 .001 F Change df1 2.202 .000 1.192 4.768 5.852 37.583 21.931 .590 .310 .073 .255 .173 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 df2 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 Sig. F Change .144 .993 .281 .034 .020 .000 .000 .447 .581 .789 .616 .680

a. Predictors: (Constant), Department

b. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female c. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology d. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience e. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age f. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use g. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Behavioral Intention h. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Behavioral Intention , Facilitating Conditions i. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Behavioral Intention , Facilitating Conditions , Coping Ego Performance Expectancy j. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Behavioral Intention , Facilitating Conditions , Coping Ego Performance Expectancy, Influence Ego Performance Expectancy k. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Behavioral Intention , Facilitating Conditions , Coping Ego Performance Expectancy, Influence Ego Performance Expectancy, Normalized Coping Centrality l. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Behavioral Intention , Facilitating Conditions , Coping Ego Performance Expectancy, Influence Ego Performance Expectancy, Normalized Coping Centrality, Normalized Influence Centrality

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 119

4.7.3 Hierarchical Regression Results for Performance Expectancy

Table 26 presents the analysis of variance results for the pooled data from both the Event Management System study and Enterprise Project Management study, including both the pre and post pilot data. The hierarchical regression uses pairwise deletion as opposed to listwise within SPSS to not eliminate cases that have incomplete data. The dependent variable is Performance Expectancy of the users. This regression initially looks at the demographical and organizational factors of Department, Gender, Technology (EMS or EPM), Experience (pre or post-pilot), Age, and voluntariness. This is done first to eliminate the variance from these predictors so as to not overstate the explained variance from the remaining social network predictors. The study then evaluates the impact of the social network variables of a users Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Coping Network Centrality, and Influence Network Centrality, , The table presents the R (Pearsons correlation coefficient), R2, Adjusted R2, Standard Error and the change statistics which include the R2 and the statistical significance of the change using an f-test. This study is primarily focused on the Adjusted R2 because it accounts the addition of so many variables by decreasing the degrees of freedom as to incorrectly gain explanatory power by combining more and more predictors. In reviewing the results of the demographical and organizational factors of Department, Gender, Technology (EMS or EPM), Experience (pre or post-pilot), Age, and voluntariness there was only one factor that could have a significant role. Department explained 10.6% change in Performance Expectancy based on its change in R2, with a .013 significance level. In reviewing the results of the social network factors of Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Coping Network Centrality, and Influence Network Centrality, only two of these factors had a significant role on Performance Expectancy. Coping Network Neighbors PE explained 10.1% change in Performance Expectancy based on its change in R2, with a .011 significance level. Influence Network Neighbors PE explained 11.1% change in Performance Expectancy based on its change in R2, with a .004

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 120

Table 26 Hierarchical Regression Results for Performance Expectancy

Model R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .326 .350b .350c .377d .425e .444f .546g .640h .653i .655j
a

R Square Adjusted R Square .106 .090 .122 .090 .122 .073 .142 .076 .181 .100 .197 .101 .298 .198 .409 .310 .427 .317 .429 .305

Std. Error of Change Statistics R Square F Change df1 the 1.366 .106 6.519 1 Change Estimate 1.366 .016 1.000 1 1.379 .000 .009 1 1.377 .020 1.205 1 1.359 .038 2.382 1 1.358 .017 1.034 1 1.283 .101 7.038 1 1.189 .111 9.015 1 1.184 .018 1.460 1 1.194 .002 .163 1

df2 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46

Sig. F .013 Change .322 .924 .277 .129 .314 .011 .004 .233 .688

a. Predictors: (Constant), Department b. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female c. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology d. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience e. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age f. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use g. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Coping Network Neighbors PE h. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE i. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Normalized Coping Centrality j. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Normalized Coping Centrality, Normalized Influence Centrality

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 121

4.7.4 Hierarchical Regression Results for Effort Expectancy

Table 26 presents the analysis of variance results for the pooled data from both the Event Management System study and Enterprise Project Management study, including both the pre and post pilot data. The hierarchical regression uses pairwise deletion as opposed to listwise within SPSS to not eliminate cases that have incomplete data. The dependent variable is Effort Expectancy of the users. This regression initially looks at the demographical and organizational factors of Department, Gender, Technology (EMS or EPM), Experience (pre or post-pilot), Age, and voluntariness. This is done first to eliminate the variance from these predictors so as to not overstate the explained variance from the remaining social network predictors. The study then evaluates the impact of the social network variables of a users Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Coping Network Centrality, and Influence Network Centrality, , The table presents the R (Pearsons correlation coefficient), R2, Adjusted R2, Standard Error and the change statistics which include the R2 and the statistical significance of the change using an f-test. This study is primarily focused on the Adjusted R2 because it accounts the addition of so many variables by decreasing the degrees of freedom as to incorrectly gain explanatory power by combining more and more predictors. In reviewing the results of the demographical and organizational factors of Department, Gender, Technology (EMS or EPM), Experience (pre or post-pilot), Age, and voluntariness there was only one factor that could have a significant role. Department explained 14.6% change in Effort Expectancy based on its change in R2, with a .003 significance level. In reviewing the results of the social network factors of Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Coping Network Centrality, and Influence Network Centrality, only two of these factors had a significant role on Effort Expectancy. Coping Network Neighbors PE explained 5.7% change in Effort Expectancy based on its change in R2, but with only a .061 significance level. Coping Network Centrality explained 6.2% change Effort Expectancy based on its change in R2, with a .042 significance level.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 122

Table 27 Hierarchical Regression Results for Effort Expectancy

Model R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .382a .383b .383c .383d .421e .422f .486g .517h .574i .576j

R Square Adjusted R Square .146 .130 .147 .115 .147 .098 .147 .081 .177 .097 .178 .080 .236 .127 .267 .145 .329 .201 .332 .186

Std. Error of Change Statistics R Square F Change df1 the .994 .146 9.397 1 Change Estimate 1.003 .001 .038 1 1.012 .000 .003 1 1.022 .000 .001 1 1.013 .031 1.898 1 1.023 .001 .069 1 .996 .057 3.681 1 .986 .032 2.064 1 .953 .062 4.351 1 .961 .002 .167 1

df2 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46

Sig. F .003 Change .846 .959 .974 .174 .795 .061 .157 .042 .685

a. Predictors: (Constant), Department b. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female c. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology d. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience e. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age f. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use g. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Coping Network Neighbors PE h. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE i. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Normalized Coping Centrality j. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Normalized Coping Centrality, Normalized Influence Centrality

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 123

4.7.5 Hierarchical Regression Results for Facilitating Conditions

Table 28 presents the analysis of variance results for the pooled data from both the Event Management System study and Enterprise Project Management study, including both the pre and post pilot data. The hierarchical regression uses pairwise deletion as opposed to listwise within SPSS to not eliminate cases that have incomplete data. The dependent variable is Facilitating Conditions of the users. This regression initially looks at the demographical and organizational factors of Department, Gender, Technology (EMS or EPM), Experience (pre or post-pilot), Age, and voluntariness. This is done first to eliminate the variance from these predictors so as to not overstate the explained variance from the remaining social network predictors. The study then evaluates the impact of the social network variables of a users Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Coping Network Centrality, and Influence Network Centrality, , The table presents the R (Pearsons correlation coefficient), R2, Adjusted R2, Standard Error and the change statistics which include the R2 and the statistical significance of the change using an f-test. For this study we are primarily focused on the Adjusted R2 because it accounts the addition of so many variables by decreasing the degrees of freedom as to incorrectly gain explanatory power by combining more and more predictors. In reviewing the results of the demographical and organizational factors of Department, Gender, Technology (EMS or EPM), Experience (pre or post-pilot), Age, and voluntariness there was only one factor that could have a significant role. Department explained 10.5% change in Facilitating Conditions based on its change in R2, with a .014 significance level. In reviewing the results of the social network factors of Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Coping Network Centrality, and Influence Network Centrality, only one of these factors had a significant role on Facilitating Conditions. Coping Network Centrality explained 5.4% change Facilitating Conditions based on its change in R2, but with a .055 significance level.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 124

Table 28 Hierarchical Regression Results for Facilitating Conditions

Model R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .324 .386b .396c .399d .477e .492f .511g .534h .583i .590j
a

R Square Adjusted R Square .105 .089 .149 .117 .157 .109 .159 .094 .227 .152 .242 .151 .261 .156 .285 .166 .340 .213 .349 .207

Std. Error of Change Statistics R Square F Change df1 the 1.061 .105 6.468 1 Change Estimate 1.044 .043 2.753 1 1.049 .008 .504 1 1.058 .002 .139 1 1.024 .068 4.515 1 1.024 .015 .972 1 1.021 .019 1.272 1 1.015 .024 1.603 1 .986 .054 3.878 1 .990 .009 .637 1

df2 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46

Sig. F .014 Change .103 .481 .710 .038 .329 .265 .212 .055 .429

a. Predictors: (Constant), Department b. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female c. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology d. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience e. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age f. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use g. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Coping Network Neighbors PE h. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE i. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Normalized Coping Centrality j. Predictors: (Constant), Department, Male or Female, Technology, Experience, Age, Voluntariness of Use, Coping Network Neighbors PE, Influence Network Neighbors PE, Normalized Coping Centrality, Normalized Influence Centrality

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 125

4.7.6 Overall Regression Model Results

Figure 18 - Statistically Significant R2 Regression Results is a visual summary of the different regression models analyzed in this study. The non-statistically significant results are omitted, but the figure includes the statistically significant relationships at the .01, .05, and .10 levels. Moderating variables were not evaluated in this study, but the potentially intervening variables (technology, department, voluntariness, experience, and age) where evaluated as part of the regression model. There were ten notable observations in the overall regression model which are discussed below.

Results are consistent with UTAUT

In comparing these results to the conceptual model from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003), the results show that Behavioral Intention is largely impacted by the Performance Expectancy with smaller impacts from Voluntariness and Social Influence. A hierarchical regression also yielded a .54 adjusted R2 for direct effects on Behavioral Intention before including any of the influencing or coping network measures which is also consistent with similar research on UTAUT.

Voluntariness has unusually high impacts on Usage while Behavioral Intention has unusually low impact on Usage
A result that differs from UTUAT is the low explanatory power of Behavioral Intention on Usage, 0.136, and the high explanatory power of Voluntariness on Usage which is not consistent with UTAUT. This result is likely for two reasons. First, the Voluntariness was not self-reported, but coded based on the situation for the particular project group, so the voluntariness measure validity is a concern. Second, the voluntariness of using the Event Management System was not simple for the users because the larger organizational decision was still being vetted which is one of the challenges in a contingent acceptance. For example, if a savvy and influential user on a client event project did not want to use the new Event Management System yet was told it was mandatory, they might consider lobbying their customer contact to request to not use the new event system. This was suggested as a commonly used tactic in a follow-up interview as a method to use ones preferred Event Management System or influence the larger organizational decision.

Department is a significant antecedent to Effort Expectancy, Performance Expectancy, and Facilitating Conditions
In this study the users Department was also shown to have a significant relationship as an antecedent of Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, and Facilitating Conditions. A mixed model could provide more clarity of this potentially intervening variable, but this was out of scope for this study. This can be expected because the individuals within each department could be impacted by a new technology similarly, have common experience and comfort level with the previous technology, or have similar access to resources to help them use a new technology.

Influence Network Centrality was not a significant antecedent to UTAUT variables

The Influence Network Centrality was tested in all the hierarchical regression models but was not shown to have any significant relationships on the dependent variables of Behavioral Intention, Use SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 126 Behavior, Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, and Facilitating Conditions. This means that the participants measure of centrality or lack of centrality within the influencing network does not seem to have a statistically significant impact on any of the key UTAUT factors. The significance of this is that an individual could be viewed as influential with access to information, resources, and knowledge of the new technology, but this itself is not a significant driver of their perceptions, intentions, or usage of the system.

Coping Network Centrality was a significant antecedent to Facilitating Conditions & Effort Expectancy
The Coping Centrality did explain 6.2% of the variance in Effort Expectancy at a .05 confidence level. It also explained 5.4% of the variance in Facilitating conditions, but only at a .10 confidence level. Both of these relationships were hypothesized because it would be expected that the centrality in a coping network would enable closer access to Facilitating Conditions such as help or resources which in turn could avoid ease of use problems of the new technology.

Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the influencing network was a significant antecedent to Performance Expectancy & Behavioral Intention
The Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Influence Network is a measure of the average performance expectancy of a users close neighbors in the Influencing Network and it also had significant relationships to the users own Performance Expectancy as well as Behavioral Intention. The Influence Network Neighbors PE explained 11% of the variance of Performance Expectancy at a .01 confidence level. This was also hypothesized because Performance Expectancy has continually been the largest driver of Behavioral Intention and if a worker is going to influence a colleague about a technology, one could expect that they would express their satisfaction/dissatisfaction in how well a new technology helps them accomplish their job, which is the core context of the relationship between the two.

Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Coping Network was a significant antecedent to Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, and Behavioral Intention
The Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Coping Network had significant relationships to the users own Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, as well as Behavioral Intention. Surprisingly, the Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Coping Network explains 15% of the Performance Expectancy at a .01 confidence level. It also explains 10.5% of the variance in the Behavioral Intention at a .05 confidence level. Not a significant, but still important it also explains about 5% of the variance in Effort Expectancy at a .10 confidence level. The significance of these impacts is that it brings visibility to the social influence between individuals and their perceptions of a new technology or innovation.

Age is has a significant impact on Usage and Facilitating Conditions

The average age of participants in this study was about 45 with many of the participants being with the company for many years. Age also have significant relationships with Use Behavior, explaining 10% of variance at .05 confidence level, as well as Facilitating Conditions, explaining 7% of the

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 127 variance at a .05 confidence level. This relationship suggests that younger users feel that they have more access to resources, knowledge, or assistance for effective use of the new technology.

The Performance Expectancy is driven by the Neighbor Performance Expectancy and department.
Performance expectancy has traditionally been the most significant driver of behavioral intention, so its role in UTAUT is important. In this hierarchical regression analysis, the Performance expectancy had an adjusted R2 of .32 with the variance being explained by its Neighbor Performance Expectancy in the influencing and coping networks as well as the individuals department. Once again, this highlights that individuals cannot be considered independent in their attitudes and perceptions of new technologies.

Neighbor Performance Expectancy is more important to Technology Acceptance then Network Centrality
The influencing and coping network measures were evaluated as antecedents to the common factors in UTAUT as well as Behavioral Intention and Use Behavior. Similar to the results in the correlation analysis, the Neighbor Performance Expectancy had larger and more significant impacts than the network centrality measures. This further suggests that perceptions and intentions of a new technology are driven more by the perceptions in ones immediate network neighborhood then their structural position in the network.

Gender Performance Expectancy Influence Centrality Age

.099*

.111** .146**
Dept

.106* .146** .258**

Effort Expectancy Behavior Intention

Influence Network Alters PE

.136**

Use Behavior

.05^
Coping Network Alters PE

.032* .105**
Social Influence

.083** .131** .068*

Influence Centrality

.024^, H11
Influence Network Alters PE

.062*

Coping Centrality

.054^

Facilitating Conditions Experience Voluntariness of Use

.374**

.089*

^. Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Figure 18 - Statistically Significant R Regression Results

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 128

4.8 Social Network Graphs

In reviewing the social network graphs, insight on organizational and individual technology acceptance can be gained in addition to just bringing social network quantifiable factors, such as centrality, group membership, and other quantitative measures back into a statistical analysis. In this section, we will review the coping and influencing modes of social networks for the pre-pilot data for the Event Registration System and Enterprise Project Management System. To provide better understanding, the graphs are color-coded based on the performance expectation as well as groups in the organization using Girvan-Newman clustering. The nodes are also sized to reflect the betweenness centrality of the network mode.

4.8.1 Event Management System

The pre-pilot and post-pilot coping networks for the Event Management System are shown in Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network and Figure 21 EMS Post-Pilot Coping Network, which represent the relationships identified when asking the participants the following two questions: List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you get help from for effective use of the Event Registration System. List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you give help too for effective use of the Event Registration System.

The graphs are color-coded based on performance expectancy, which gives a good indication of the participants perception if the new Event Management System will help them do their job. Green means that they gave a positive response, yellow indicates neutrality, red indicates a negative response, and grey means that there was not a response to the performance expectancy question. The response rate for the pre-pilot surveys was very high for the two projects, 46 out of 49, which is likely attributable to the researcher being an employee and hand-delivering each hardcopy survey, which some follow-up. The post-pilot surveys had high response rates, but not as good as the first surveys; 34 out of 49 which could be a concern when assembling the social network graphs. In reviewing the post-pilot results based on the role of the participants in the first survey, it appears that most, if not all of the central figures responded, although in many cases they might have moved out of central roles. Examples of these central position changes can be seen where the central resources in the EMS pre-pilot coping network shown in Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network (Kim, Dayna, Linda, Josh, & Jayden), also appear in the post-pilot coping network shown in Figure 21 EMS Post-Pilot Coping Network, but they are no longer occupying the central roles. Its also important to note that the target of the post-pilot surveys also only included the participants who completed a pre-pilot survey, which could miss some new actors that joined the project since the initial survey. This risk is mitigated because the new actors would likely be identified by the others in the coping network. In the case of the Event Management System, it was a controversial initiative and had been evaluated almost annually for the previous 3-4 years. Past negative experiences with two other

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 129 commercially available Event Management Systems used for particular clients in the previous 3 years based on specific client needs had generated significant negative experiences as well. At the beginning of the pilot for the Event Registration there was approval to move ahead with a pilot for the new event registration system, but it was a deeply political issue that would drive significant change, so it is possible that system use is highly related to the political opinions within the network of weather to use the system for the new clients or to continue to use the legacy system for event management. Essentially it was also a very distributed decision as well. Any of the 40+ marketing clients could mandate the use of a particular event registration system for their events and many had previous experience or even a license to a commercially available event registration system, so there is 4-5 different event registration systems used in any given year. Using these other registration systems was not the norm and usually the client was satisfied with using the marketing companys legacy registration system. This also means that a client account management staff could have some flexibility into what solution they should propose to a client. Essentially if any one client mandated to use a particular Event Management System, then it would automatically be the solution for that client. This opens an interesting opportunity that an opinionated marketing company employee who could sway the direction of what Event Registration System to use by steering a client in one direction or another during presentations or day to day communications with the client. Close to the beginning of the pilot, the researcher asked two separate employees who were both opinion leaders on their impressions of a large client presentation that occurred a few days earlier. This was a client presentation to propose the new Event Management System and other event options for a large user conference to be held later that year. The one employee from IT, Josh, who was presenting the new Event Management System options and recommending the usage of the new registration system, described the meeting as this. "The client was excited about the lower cost and new functionality of the new system and appeared to be in agreement with that direction until the client asked about how comfortable the marketing company was with the direction. Other marketing employees responded by bringing up risks, issues, and concerns about the new direction and quickly brought the clients focus back to the legacy system, which was the final outcome of the meeting." Josh suggested that the other employees were casting fear into the client with the goal of swaying the decision. That same day the researcher asked another opinion leader, Kim, who was not in the meeting and has been skeptical on the potential change. She was not present in the meeting but offered a recap of the meeting which was very different than that of Josh. She described the outcome of the meeting as follows: The client was just fine with the legacy system and it was only one person at the client who had an issue with the legacy system because it couldnt use radio buttons. " She then went on to explain that the reviews of the new system showed that there was significant gaps in the functionality and that its just not the tool for us right now and maybe sometime later we will find a better one. This was a surprising statement because it inferred that the pilot that was just about to start was not appropriate right now. This makes this organizational technology decision a hybrid of voluntariness. There was a company direction decision made and communicated by the two executive team members who had ultimate responsibility of this business and the technology solutions involved. Although many resources did SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 130 not believe that this was a good direction and could be using their role as an opinion leader or influence over a client to reverse or delay this direction. So it seems that the initial technology acceptance of new systems within companies are very politically driven and when its a client facing technology, there are many people who will continue to push their personal opinion that they believe is correct long after an enterprise decision is made. This makes the modeling for technology acceptance complex because of the politics within a contingent acceptance. The system use might not follow a more predictable technology acceptance in this dynamic situation, which suggests looking to other dimensions that would provide more insight on this political dynamic, which is why a social network analysis would be enlightening. Its also important to note that since this initial data was collected prior to most of the users having hands-on experience, it would likely mean that their perceptions are based more on the perceptions from those around them, not their own experiences.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 131

4.8.1.1 Event Management System Pre-Pilot Coping Network (EMS)

Description: Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network, which was generated in NetDraw, shows the coping network at the beginning of the Event Management System Pilot. This coping network shows who the actors interact with in order to help manage (minimize, reduce, master, tolerate) demands emanating from a specific change in the person-environment relationship (Lazarus 1966). The connections are directional based originating at the actor who identified others as someone they get or give help to. The nodes are color-coded based on Performance Expectancy responses for the Event Management System; red for a negative, yellow for neutral, and green for a positive response. The nodes are sized relative to each other based on betweenness centrality which represents how many pairs of nodes they are between(Freeman 1977). Groups In reviewing this network for groups that naturally belong together, the network participants naturally fall into three groups when evaluated using the Girvan-Newman analysis within Netdraw(Borgatti 2002), which can be generalized based on their current roles into three classes; the isolates, client support team, and the pilot project. There are no networks that are disjoint, but there are several individuals that are not part of the coping network. The isolates are essentially those participants where did not identify any person that they interact with that they give or receive help from regarding the Event Management System. The group is generally made up of IT resources and an account team lead that will be impacted by the current or future use of this technology but are not integrated into the coping network yet. The second natural group or class of individuals is located on the lower left side of Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network, can be generalized as the client facing team who currently works directly or indirectly with the one client who uses the new Event Management System or the second client who is evaluating using it. Generally with their client facing roles, this group is continually under significant pressure to manage events in the US and globally. The Marketing Company primarily focuses on high-touch differentiated events for customers and VIPs, so clients expect a flawless and differentiated event where the attendees do not experience any challenges in the event registration process or onsite. The clients will have very specific requests, so hand-holding is normal for the VIPs and other attendees. This does make these client-delivery teams very risk-adverse to new technologies so as to not upset a demanding client that has no appetite for any mistakes. The third group or class can be generalized as the new technology pilot group, which is shown on the right side of Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network. This group is primarily made up of the IT and Data/Operations resources that have been tied into the pilot or earlier evaluations of the new Event Management System to replace the previous legacy system. Six of the eleven people are IT resources which have had responsibility for the most of the pre-pilot deliverables, such as a comparison of functionality, business case, gap list, and others. The central figures in this pilot group are Dayna, the experienced IT Analyst who has focused on client event delivery for many years and has many social ties to the individuals in the Data/Operations groups. Another central figure in this group is Linda, an IT Analyst who previously worked in the Data/Ops group, but was brought back to SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 132 the company as a Subject Matter Expert to work on bridging the pilot group and the events delivery teams based on her past background. It is important to note that when looking at these groups that have been together for a long time that group solidarity as an outcome of social capital could have a significant impact technology acceptance networks. If networks where highly connected it facilitates the emergence of effective norms and maintains trustworthiness of others, and in turn increasing social capital as a group (Coleman 1988). These strong ties and solidarity could also limit the inflow of new ideas into the group (Gargiulo and Bernassi 1999; Adler and Kwon 2002). The clusters have moderate intra-cluster sparsity, where the two groups have multiple connections between each other. Jayden, Dayna, London, Emma, and Santiago help bridge the two groups together. These individuals have been working together on client events for many years and have likely built up significant social capital or trust with each other over the years. Alternatively, none of the newer IT resources or contractors brought in for this particular new Event Management System pilot project such as Patrick, Jennifer, Linda or Josh are playing a role in intra-cluster connections. This network does have high intra-cluster density in terms of connections with the two groups or clusters. There are several instances of cliques within the network group where everyone in the small groups is connected to all of the others in the group such as the clique that is made up of Isabelle, Kim, Dayna, and Linda. In looking at the groups for the more relaxed k-clique definition, a clique where everyone is still connected or within a path distance of k away from others, almost all of the pilot group and client-facing groups would be part of 2-cliques. Individual Power and Positions One of the primary purposes of graph theory in social network analysis is the identification of the most important actors in the social network(Wasserman and Faust 1994). The five most central resources within this this network is Santiago, Dayna, Julie, Josh, and Ava. The most central person in Figure is Santiago, who is a data ops analyst who has had experience using the new Event Management System while working on the one client that currently uses it for their events. He was not identified as a key resource when the VP in charge of the area helped identify the group of resources to survey. As a technical leader in the organization at the beginning of this pilot, surprisingly the researcher had never met Santiago in 2 years of working in partnership with this group. If this group was disjoint from the larger network, it would be a good example of a highly centralized graph, where it has a highly central actor, Santiago, around which the peripheral collect around (Borgatti 2002). The second notable individual within the pilot cluster in Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network was Josh the IT Analyst. At the time of the survey, Josh was business analyst and a solution architect whose responsibilities included identifying solutions that met client needs and helping identify future technologies that the company could use to differentiate its service offerings. He had a high personal innovativeness, and was a strong supporter of moving from the legacy Event Management System to the new Event Management System. His opinions put himself in conflict with others like Kim, the Data Operations manager in terms of opinions on if and how to transition to a new technology. He described an internal client solution meeting with a client facing team, himself, and SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 133 Kim where there was general agreement on the direction, but at the conclusion of the meeting, he felt Kim undermined the solution by immediately expressing concerns to the client account lead on the decision. Another central person in the pilot group was Dayna, who acted as an intra-cluster bridging role between the two network clusters in Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network. As mentioned earlier, she was an individual with significant domain experience in the events business as well as managing and configuring the previous legacy system as both a business consultant and front-end programmer. She also was socially tied to many of the resources within the Data/Operations and IT organization and was respected for her knowledge on managing many of the recurring events over the years which made her an efficient analyst. Its possible that her strong ties into both the Data/Ops and IT organization could start feeling like a Simmilian tie, where she would be significantly limited in expressing her opinion without causing friction in her relationships in one or both groups (Krackhardt 1999). For many years, she also was a very vocal supporter of the previous legacy system. This also put her opinions in conflict (albeit a good working relationship) with many resources who felt that moving to the new technology would benefit the company; which included Josh and Joseph the IT Director (this researchers role prior to the pilot). To provide context on this conflict, 2 months before the pilot, there was a meeting with Maria the IT Director, Joseph the IT Director, and Josh to discuss who should be involved in the pilot of this new Event Management System. As the higher ranking technical resource, Joseph suggested that Dayna should not be on the new Event Management System pilot because of her vocal history stating that there is not a new Event Management System that would satisfy the needs of the Marketing Companys clients as well as the legacy system does. It was felt that the team would spend too much time justifying any process change to Dayna and she would potentially undermine the pilot. In hindsight, the decision to not include Dayna, was ill-informed decision for three reasons; her substantial domain experience, her centrality and bridging role in the coping network, and her positive performance expectancy. The coping network graph validates her central in the coping of individuals using the new technology from many different groups. At the beginning of the pilot in January of 2011, it was eventually decided that she would be part of pilot because she was so familiar with the capabilities of the legacy system and previously documented gaps of the new system. So she was included in many of the discussions and meetings regarding the new Event Management System at the beginning of the initial pilot. There is also one notable figure, which was not showing up as high coping centrality, but plays an important part of this group. Kim was the Data/Ops Lead Manager who is the supervisor to most of the Data/Ops resources and works on client deliverables as well. She is very involved in the evaluation of the new Event Management System, likely because of her experience in the domain as well as the impact it could have on her team, which she felt were significant. She was the only person in this smaller pilot group that had negative performance expectancy. This was a point of contention with some of the IT resources because they felt that Kims perception of the new Even t Management System was making their jobs much more difficult because they continued to have to go to increasing levels of details to address the differences or perceived gaps between the internally developed legacy Event Management System and the newer vendor supplied Event Management SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 134 System. The previous system was internally developed in 2000 and through co-adoption over the next 10 years, the system, the Data/Ops team, client teams, IT teams, and the processes all evolved overtime together. So it would be expected that there would be differences between a vendor system and an internally developed system which everyone was comfortable with. If any of these gaps has a negative impact on any of the long-standing clients with recurrent events, it could yield a significant issue within the company, so Kims concerns for the gaps were generally considered valid from most other stakeholders, especially the functional VP she reported to and the delivery teams from other departments. There were not any individuals who filled structural holes because of the intra-cluster sparsity where there were multiple connections between the groups. From a social network view, structural holes would be the individuals (or players) that occupy a network position that connects two different groups. This allows them to potentially benefit from a more heterogeneous flow of information from multiple network groups and potentially have more control of information or influence within the larger network. It could be assumed that most of the connections were strong ties because of the wording of the survey questions which asked only for those individuals who were they had frequent interaction with. One might speculate if some of the vendor connections such as Josh and Lucas the Vendor executive were closer to a weak tie relationship. Generally the networks had small diameters within and between the groups, meaning it didnt take to many steps along a path between any two individuals within the connected network. Performance Expectancy The performance expectancy of many of the executive or director-level actors was not surprising. The two functional executives responsible for larger departments, Dawn and Richard, do not believe it will help them do their job, likely because they are fairly removed from the day to day client event support. The client focused executive, Lily, believes it will help her do her job which could relate to the high level of responsibility she has for the one client who uses the new technology, although the Event Management System is licensed directly by the client and is primarily managed by that client who is quite happy with it. Pat, the Account Team VP/Director is also responsible for one of the larger client who has expressed significant frustration over the older legacy system has been in discussions with this client on the potential usage of the new Event Management System, but only gives it a neutral response for her performance expectancy. Lucas, the last executive in the network is the Event Management System Vendor executive responsible for growing a relationship and long term contract with the marketing company, so it is not surprising that he has positive performance expectancy. The client facing teams have a mostly positive or neutral performance expectancy for the new Event Management System, this is likely because the two larger clients currently already use this new Event Management System or are evaluating using it at the time of this first survey. The pilot group in general has very positive performance expectancy with the exception of the two functional executives and Kim the Data Ops Lead/Manager Context at time of survey SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 135 The state of organizational or contingent decision at the time of the surveys in late January 2011 was generally positive. A business case was developed by a cross-functional team including Joseph, Julie, Patrick, Kim, Josh, Dayna, and others that was then approved by the functional execs and president of the company early in January and communicated out to most of the resources in the network. The business case was part of a larger plan to substantially increase sales over the next 3-4 years. The proposal was to invest a substantial amount into a 2 month pilot. The future return on investment in the pilot required new functionality to generate new revenue opportunities and reduction of costs by retiring the legacy system within a few quarters. There were five tactics for the pilot. First, establish a cross-functional team including resources from the marketing company and the technology vendor. Second, conduct the pilot with a real client. Third, if the pilot is successful, launch the platform across the larger client base. Fourth, establish a product management function with SMEs & trainers to manage the product line over time with the vendor and facilitate adoption and usage across the client base. Lastly, identify key metrics for monitoring and controlling the new services. The state of the organization was in flux, a merger had just finished with a new owner of the company and there was a significant business evaluation to determine the strategic direction of the marketing company. There was a general sense of anxiety of the employees as they waited for the larger direction and what any impacts would be on their group. At the end of January there was a small layoff of many of the middle management in the company including Joseph the IT Director as part of this larger strategic direction. The state of the resources on the pilot was positive as the resources worked on a more detailed plan and was in discussions with different client teams to figure out which client would be the best candidate for the new technology pilot.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 136

a. b. c. d. e. f. Color coding relative surveyed Performance Expectancy mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree Represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of whether its Give Help or Get Help Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Red 1-3.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Generated from Netdraw

Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network

a. b. c. d. e.

Color coding based on most efficient grouping using Gervin-Newman Clustering (.418) Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of whether its Give Help or Get Help Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 20 EMS Pre-pilot Coping Network Grouping

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 137

4.8.1.2 Event Management System Post-Pilot Coping Network

Description: Similar to the Pre-Pilot, Figure 21 EMS Post-Pilot Coping Network was generated in NetDraw and shows the coping network at the expected end of the Event Management System Pilot. This coping network shows who the actors interact with in order to help manage (minimize, reduce, master, tolerate) demands emanating from a specific change in the person-environment relationship (Lazarus 1966). The connections are directional based originating at the actor who identified others as someone they get or give help to. The nodes are color-coded based on Performance Expectancy responses for the Event Management System; red for a negative, yellow for neutral, and green for a positive response. The nodes are sized relative to each other based on betweenness centrality which represents how many pairs of nodes they are between(Freeman 1977). Groups The coping network has fragmented significantly since the pre-pilot survey. In reviewing this network for groups that naturally belong together, the network participants naturally fall into six groups when evaluated using the Girvan-Newman analysis within Netdraw (Borgatti 2002) as shown in Figure 22 EMS Post Pilot Coping Network Grouping. The isolates are considered a group for this study. The groups can then generalized based on their current roles into six classes, the first three have some semblance to pre-pilot groups but have changed members; the isolates (black), client support team (grey), the pilot project (pink). The other three can be generalized as the crossfunctional operations leadership (blue), the vendor (green), and the data/ops leadership (red). Not only did the network reduce in density, but it also became more disjoint. There are now seven isolates rather than four at the beginning of the pilot. The isolates are essentially those participants who did not identify any person that they interact with that they give or receive help from regarding the Event Management System. The group is still made up of IT resources and an account team lead that will be impacted by the current or future use of this technology but are not integrated into the coping network yet, but now one of the functional execs as well as Dayna have become isolates. Dayna was very central in pre-pilot coping network, but has been taken off the project because they wanted to reduce the cost of the pilot. The second natural group or class of individuals is color coded as grey in Figure 22 EMS Post Pilot Coping Network Grouping, was generalized as the client facing team who currently works directly or indirectly with the one client who uses the Event Management System or the second client who is evaluating using it. With their client facing roles, this group is continually under significant pressure to manage events in the US and globally. This group also reduced in size and the most probable client that was expected to switch over to use the new Event Management System decided to keep moving forward with the legacy system, which was not surprising because the client-delivery team is very risk-adverse to new technologies so as to not upset a demanding client that has no appetite for any mistakes. The third group or class was generalized as the new technology pilot group, which is color-coded as pink in Figure 22 EMS Post Pilot Coping Network Grouping. This group changed significantly as it was SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 138 separated from the any connections to the client facing group, most of the IT resources have been taken off the project or left the company, and two strategy-level executives became involved in the future pilot or direction of the Event Management Capabilities. The only central figure is Josh, the IT Analyst who is only involved on the periphery of the project. He was removed from a full-time role in the Event Management area shortly after voicing some concerns over the direction of the Events Technologies, and his only connection to the larger coping network is a non-reciprocated connection to the Functional Exec who is the primary sponsor of the Event Management System pilot. In summary, the pre-pilot cluster that was classified as the pilot group consisted of mostly IT staff with very few remaining. Linda and Patrick were contractors who were let go, Josh and Dayna were reassigned, and Joseph left the company in a post-merger layoff. The cross-functional operations leadership (blue) is also a new cluster. In the pre-pilot coping network they were part of other groups, but now it seems the central decision maker, Dawn, is the central figure in a five person group of cross-functional managers when it comes to coping with the new Events Management System. Dawn ego coping network also includes Kim the Data-Ops Lead Manager, who is separated into the data/ops leadership (red) group. This group centered on Kim is small, but she is now central to the larger network and has a controlling position in the coping network to any information coming from the pilot group and the cross-functional leadership group. The most dramatic change to this network is the separation of the new Events Management System vendor from the larger coping network. In the pre-pilot, most of their ties in the coping network were through the IT group, but with most of those individuals removed, they are no longer part of the coping network and the other groups did not identify the vendor as part of their coping network. The only group of individuals that stayed relatively the same is the client-focused group which is primarily made up of the data/ops group and different account team member, many of which report to Kim. These individuals have worked together for many years and would be the most impacted by a change in Event Management Technologies. There is a certain amount of transient membership in the other groups, but this group likely has a significant amount of solidarity and norms. As mentioned earlier, group solidarity as an outcome of social capital could have a significant impact technology acceptance networks. If networks where highly connected it facilitates the emergence of effective norms and maintains trustworthiness of others, and in turn increasing social capital as a group (Coleman 1988). These strong ties and solidarity could also limit the inflow of new ideas into the group (Gargiulo and Bernassi 1999; Adler and Kwon 2002). The clusters in the connected network have very low intra-cluster sparsity, where the two groups have generally one connection between each other. At the point of the pre-pilot, Josh, Dawn, and Kim are playing bridging roles between the different groups, with Kim controlling the information flow into the delivery teams. This network also significantly reduced in intra-cluster density in terms of connections with the two groups or clusters. Only the client facing group (grey) in Figure 22 EMS Post Pilot Coping Network Grouping, has most everyone connected to all of the others in the group such as the 2-clique that is made up of Santiago, Ava, Patty, Diego, and others. Individual Power and Positions SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 139 The power has shifted substantially from Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network to the Figure 21 EMS Post-Pilot Coping Network . The three most central resources within this this are now Josh, Dawn, and Kim. Santiago was one of the more central figures in the pre-pilot coping network, but with the fragmentation of the coping network, he is now isolated in terms of pathways to others outside of his immediate group with only one pathway through Kim and Dawn. Josh is still a central person, but after being removed from the project full-time and taken off much of the solution support for the Events area, his connections are now also limited to long-pathways through Dawn and Kim. As mentioned earlier, he had high personal innovativeness, and was a strong supporter of moving from the legacy Event Management System to the new Event Management System, but it could be that his opinions put himself in conflict with others like Kim, the Data Ops manager in terms of opinions on if and how to transition to a new technology. This could have been a factor in being separated from the Events Management Groups and has voiced significant frustration over this situation. Another central person in the earlier pre-pilot group was Dayna, who earlier acted as an intra-cluster bridging role between the two network clusters in Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network, but now she is completely isolated from the coping network for the new Event Management System. She also was an individual with significant domain experience in the events business as well as managing and configuring the previous legacy system as both a business consultant and front-end programmer and at the time of the post-pilot survey, she is focusing on supporting events on the legacy Event Management System. She also was socially tied to many of the resources within the Data/Operations and IT organization and was respected for her knowledge on managing many of the recurring events over the years which made her an efficient analyst. For many years, she also was a very vocal supporter of the previous legacy system. She is likely a central figure in the coping network around the legacy Event Management System. The most central figure in the Figure 21 EMS Post-Pilot Coping Network is Kim, the Data/Ops Lead Manager who is the supervisor to most of the Data/Ops resources and works on client deliverables as well. Looking back at the pre-pilot coping network where she was a non-central figure in the coping network. She was one of the few people in this smaller pilot group that had negative performance expectancy in Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network. She was very involved in the evaluation of the new Event Management System, likely because of her experience in the domain as well as the impact it could have on her team, which she felt were significant. In the pre-pilot, there was significant contention with some of the IT resources because they felt that Kims perception of the new Event Management System was making their jobs much more difficult. Several felt they needed to go to increasing levels of details to address the differences or perceived gaps between the internally developed legacy Event Management System and the newer vendor supplied Event Management System. This list of gaps was central issue in the pre and post pilot timeframes and it was suggested at the time of the post-pilot survey to wait until the vendor was able to close more of the perceived gaps before the group moved forward with a larger pilot or using other key clients. SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 140 Unlike the pre-pilot coping network, were there were not any individuals who filled structural holes, now Josh, Dawn and Kim all fill structural-hole positions. From a social network view, structural holes would be the individuals (or players) that occupy a network position that connects two different groups. This allows them to potentially benefit from a more heterogeneous flow of information from multiple network groups and potentially have more control of information or influence within the larger network. It could be assumed that most of the connections were strong ties because of the wording of the survey questions which asked only for those individuals who were they had frequent interaction with. As mentioned earlier, one might wonder if some of the vendor connections such as Josh and Lucas the Vendor executive were closer to a weak tie relationship. Generally the groups within networks had small diameters, meaning it didnt take to many steps along a path between any two individuals within the connected network, but the pathways for the vendor and new isolates no longer existed and the pilot group was pushed out to the periphery of the coping network. Performance Expectancy The performance expectancy of individuals changed is several cases, but the larger change was the positive performance expectation resources moving out of central roles into periphery or out of the network all-together. The directors or above stayed roughly the same as a group. They are the ones who are very involved at the organizational decision of using the new Event Management System for all of the Event clients supported by the Marketing Company. In the pre-pilot survey, the two functional executives responsible for largest departments, Dawn and Richard, do not believe it will help them do their job, likely, because they are fairly removed from the day to day client event support. This was consistent with the post-pilot survey, although Dawn was now neutral on performance expectancy. Kims Performance Expectancy remained negative from the pre-pilot to the post-pilot timeframes even though much of her teams Performance Expectancy is positive or neutral. If Performance Expectancy of an individual impacts the perceptions of neighbors, this makes Kims Performance Expectancy more important because now only Kim and Isabelle were identified as part of the coping network for Dawn who is the key decision maker and sponsor for the Events Management System. There were other connections with Josh and Leah, but Joshs connection to Dawn was not reciprocated and Leah didnt fill out a post-pilot survey. Pat, the Account Team VP/Director is also responsible for one of the larger client who has expressed significant frustration over the older legacy system has been in discussions with this client on the potential usage of the new Event Management System, was neutral for her performance expectancy in the pre-pilot, which dropped to a negative performance expectancy in the post-pilot survey. This could be because the client issues around the legacy system reduced or new issues or concerns decreased her perception of the new system. Her client was originally targeted to use the new Event Management System as part of the pilot, but this was changed around the time the pilot started. Pat also surprisingly became an isolate as well in post-pilot coping network.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 141 Lucas, the last executive in the network is the Event Management System Vendor executive responsible for growing a relationship and long term contract with the Marketing Company, so it is not surprising that he has positive performance expectancy again. The client facing teams still have a mostly positive or neutral performance expectancy for the new Event Management System, this is likely because the client that currently uses this new Event Management System is still satisfied and a proponent of its use. The remaining people in the pilot cluster still has a positive performance expectancy, with the exception of Josh who had reduced his performance expectancy from positive to neutral, which might be a reaction to his frustration over the progress of the pilot between the pre and post-pilot timeframes. Visually, you can see that the Performance Expectancy of individuals within Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network and Figure 21 EMS Post-Pilot Coping Network generally tend to have similar Performance Expectancies as their neighbors, which is important in evaluating the hypothesis that a neighbors Performance Expectancy will impact an individuals behavioral intention. Context at time of survey The state of organizational or contingent decision at the time of the surveys in April was significantly different then at the pre-pilot. At the pre-pilot timeframe, a business case was developed by a cross-functional team including Joseph, Julie, Patrick, Kim, Josh, Dayna, and others that was then approved by the functional execs and president of the company early in January and communicated out to most of the resources in the network. At the time of the post-pilot, the pilot did not reach a conclusion although they tried it for a new client and a new pilot would need to be executed again and a new business case put together with a potential rollout in the next year. In reviewing the plans of the previously approved plan, the pilot can be considered a failure. The original business plan was to invest a substantial amount into a 2 month pilot, but during this timeframe most of the individuals were removed from the project, although a contract was established with the Event Management System Vendor. In the original plan, the future return on investment in the pilot required new functionality to generate new revenue opportunities and reduction of costs by retiring the legacy system within a few quarters. At the time of the post pilot survey, it was changed to only partially use the new Event Management System during any subsequent pilots and continuing using the legacy system for the back-office processing which eliminated the possibility of cost savings of retiring the legacy system. The state of the organization at the time of the post-pilot survey was still in flux as the company was settling into a clearer strategic direction of the marketing company. At the point of the pre-pilot survey, there was a general sense of anxiety of the employees as they waited for the larger direction and what any impacts would be on their group. As mentioned earlier parts of the pilot were completed, such as vendor on-sight training and further understanding of the potential and perceived functional gaps that would need to be addressed with the Event Management System vendor, but in general the pilot was going to go through a restart and a larger rollout was being discussed for the next year.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 142

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Color coding relative surveyed Performance Expectancy mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree Represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of whether its Give Help or Get Help Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Red 1-3.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Generated from Netdraw

Figure 21 EMS Post-Pilot Coping Network

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 143

f. g. h. i. j.

Color coding based on most efficient grouping using Gervin-Newman Clustering (.550) Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of whether its Give Help or Get Help Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 22 EMS Post Pilot Coping Network Grouping

4.8.1.3 Event Management System Pre-Pilot Influencing Network

Description Figure 23 EMS Pre Pilot Influencing Network, was generated in NetDraw and shows the influencing network at the beginning of the Event Management System Pilot. This influencing network shows who the actors interact with along pathways within the network that have access to information, resources, and knowledge which are typically unavailable to those on the periphery with longer pathways or isolated from the network altogether (Ibarra and Andrews 1993; Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). This influencing indicates that people in central structural positions in a network will have more influence over system design to their needs which is often labeled as co-adoption, thus driving up their usage. The connections are directional based originating at the actor who identified others as someone they get or give help to. The nodes are color-coded based on Performance Expectancy responses for the Event Management System; red for a negative, yellow for neutral, and green for a positive response. The nodes are sized relative to each other based on betweenness centrality which represents how many pairs of nodes they are between(Freeman 1977). Groups

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 144 In reviewing this network for groups that naturally belong together, the network participants naturally fall into four groups when evaluated using the Girvan-Newman analysis within Netdraw(Borgatti 2002), which are color-coded in Figure 24 EMS Pre-Pilot Influencing Groups. These groups are significantly different then the coping network. One significant difference from the Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network is that the IT staff and vendor contacts are clustered together in their group which is shaded black in Figure 24 EMS PrePilot Influencing Groups. It is appropriate and promising to see that employees in an organization do interact with important actors outside of their organization that might help them understand how to use a new technology, but they might not be able to identify them by name. The challenge is that without a name, its not possible to follow-up with a secondary survey to these individuals via a snowball survey approach. The second group which is the pilot group and functional leads, which is shown in Figure 24 EMS PrePilot Influencing Groups on the right and color-coded as red. To generalize the members, its the division execs, operations staff, and leads who are involved in the decision to use the new Events Management System, and the other members who are participating in the pilot. Although it not easy to generalize this cluster because there are several Data/Ops and CSR resources in the group that are not part of the pilot. The group on the lower left in Figure 23 EMS Pre Pilot Influencing Network is a fairly centralized group, similar to the coping network; we will continue to refer to this group as the client group. It can be generalized as those individuals who have had some exposure to the new Event Registration System while working with the one client who mandated the usage of the new Event Registration System due to compatibility needs within the clients organization. All of the account team members are part of this group and the few individuals who support this client. One interesting actor in this group is that it is heavily centralized around a data ops analyst who was not originally identified as a key user of the Event Registration System by the events technical director (the researcher) or the division exec responsible for the events area that put together list of survey respondents and the pilot group. Instead this central individual was identified via the snowball survey method to build the social network and its boundaries. This actor occupies a structural hole and helps link the two networks together in terms of access to information in the effective use of the Event Registration System. A second identified actor in this group that was unexpected was a client executive who was a customer of the marketing company. Lily, the VP/Director identified this person as someone that they interact with frequently who has access to information for the effective use of the system. A survey was not sent to this newly identified actor because the actor was a customer outside of the organization and client communications are highly sensitive and critical. This is another case where the boundary the network extends beyond the organization. There are no networks that are disjoint, but there are several individuals that are not part of the coping network. The isolates are essentially those participants where did not identify any person that they interact with that they believe have access to information, knowledge, or resources regarding the new Event Management System.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 145 The clusters have lower intra-cluster sparsity, where the two larger groups only have a single connection between each other and connected via the Data Ops Analysts. Alternatively, none of the newer IT resources or contractors brought in for this particular new Event Management System pilot project such as Patrick, Jennifer, Linda or Josh are playing a role in intra-cluster connections. This network does have high intra-cluster density in terms of connections with the two groups or clusters. There are several instances of cliques within the network group where everyone in the small groups is connected to all of the others in the group such as the clique that is made up of Linda, Kim, Dayna, and Linda. In looking at the groups for the more relaxed k-clique definition, a clique where everyone is still connected or within a path distance of k away from others, almost all of the pilot group (red & black) and client-facing groups (blue) would be part of 2-cliques. The group of isolates who were unable to identify anyone they interacted with that had access to information for the effective use of the Event Registration System. The IT Analyst that was part of the isolated group also works in the events area, but is heavily dedicated to managing the previous legacy event system with little time to interact with others on the new system due to a major client program running at this time on the legacy event system. The two call-center reps are likely in this same situation focused on the client program using the legacy technology. Individual Power and Positions One of the primary purposes of graph theory in social network analysis is the identification of the most important actors in the social network(Wasserman and Faust 1994). The five most central resources within this this network is Santiago, Julie, Dayna, Kim, Josh, and Linda. The most central person in Figure is Santiago similar to the coping network. Santiago is a data ops analyst who has had experience using the new Event Management System while working on the one client that currently uses it for their events. The second notable individual within the pilot cluster in Figure 24 EMS Pre-Pilot Influencing Groups, was Josh the IT Analyst. He is the central person is the IT/Vendor cluster that is color-coded as black. At the time of the survey, Josh was business analyst and a solution architect whose responsibilities included identifying solutions that met client needs and helping identify future technologies that the company could use to differentiate its service offerings. It had high personal innovativeness, and was a strong supporter of moving from the legacy Event Management System to the new Event Management System. His opinions put himself in conflict with others like Kim, the Data Ops manager in terms of opinions on if and how to transition to a new technology. Another central person in the pilot group was Dayna was an IT Analyst by closer and more integrated into the Data Operations group. As mentioned earlier, she was an individual with significant domain experience in the events business as well as managing and configuring the previous legacy system as both a business consultant and front-end programmer. She also was socially tied to many of the resources within the Data/Operations and IT organization and was respected for her knowledge on managing many of the recurring events over the years which made her an efficient analyst. For many years, she also was a very vocal supporter of the previous legacy system. Similar to the pre-pilot copping network, Kim was not showing up as high coping centrality, but plays an important part of this group. Kim was the Data/Ops Lead Manager who is the supervisor to most SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 146 of the Data/Ops resources and works on client deliverables as well. She is very involved in the evaluation of the new Event Management System, likely because of her experience in the domain as well as the impact it could have on her team, which she felt were significant. She had negative performance expectancy, which was a point of contention with some of the IT resources because they felt that Kims perception of the new Event Management System was making their jobs much more difficult because they continued to have to go to increasing levels of details to address the differences or perceived gaps between the internally developed legacy Event Management System and the newer vendor supplied Event Management System. Julie is another data ops analyst who was central to this network and identified several people that she frequently interacts with that has significant knowledge, information, or resources regarding the new technology. Here central role between the groups is likely because she was at the center of the discussion of whether to use the new Events Management System on the client that she is dedicated to. She was also extremely busy with the clients current demands and which had several existing event registrations starting soon that required a decision on which Events Management System to use, there were existing issues brought up by the client on the legacy Events Management System, and the client was looking for proposals on new opportunities from the marketing company. These dynamics are what likely put her in the center of interacting with others who had access to resources, knowledge, and information regarding the new Events Management System. Both Julie and Santiago filled structural holes where they were the only connections between the groups. From a social network view, structural holes would be the individuals (or players) that occupy a network position that connects two different groups. This allows them to potentially benefit from a more heterogeneous flow of information from multiple network groups and potentially have more control of information or influence within the larger network. It could be assumed that most of the connections were strong ties because of the wording of the survey questions which asked only for those individuals who were they had frequent interaction with. One might wonder if some of the vendor connections such as Josh and Lucas the Vendor executive were closer to a weak tie relationship. Generally the networks had slightly larger diameters within and between the groups then the coping network, meaning it took more steps along a path between any two individuals within the connected network for information to travel. Performance Expectancy Overall the performance expectancy was neutral or positive with the central individuals within the influencing network as shown in Figure 23 EMS Pre Pilot Influencing Network with Santiago, Dayna, Julie, and Josh all having positive or neutral Performance Expectancy. Kim was the fifth most central individual in the diagram and was the first person to have a negative Performance Expectancy amongst the central resources. The VP/Executive level varied significantly in terms of Performance Expectancy. The two functional executives responsible for larger departments, Dawn and Richard, do not believe it will help them do their job, likely, because they are fairly removed from the day to day client event support. The client focused executive, Lily, who believes it will help her do her job, has high level responsibility for the SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 147 one client who uses the new technology, although the Event Management System is licensed directly by the client and is primarily managed by that client who is quite happy with it. Pat, the Account Team VP/Director is also responsible for one of the larger client who has expressed significant frustration over the older legacy system has been in discussions with this client on the potential usage of the new Event Management System, but only gives it a neutral response for her performance expectancy. Lucas, the last executive in the network is the Event Management System Vendor executive responsible for growing a relationship and long term contract with the Marketing Company, so it is not surprising that he has positive performance expectancy. The client facing teams in the lower left of Figure 23 EMS Pre Pilot Influencing Network have a mostly positive or neutral performance expectancy for the new Event Management System, this is likely because the two larger clients are currently already use this new Event Management System or are evaluating using it at the time of this first survey. The grouping of Data/Ops analysts and CSRs in the upper right of Figure 23 EMS Pre Pilot Influencing Network, many of whom were also integrated into the pilot group, varied in terms of performance expectancy. There were also two functional execs tied into the network. Context at time of survey The state of organizational or contingent decision at the time of the surveys in late January was generally positive. A business case was developed by a cross-functional team including Joseph, Julie, Patrick, Kim, Josh, Dayna, and others that was approved by the functional execs and president of the company early in January and communicated out to most of the resources in the network. The business case was part of a larger plan to substantially increase sales over the next 3-4 years. The proposal was to invest a substantial amount into a 2 month pilot. The future return on investment in the pilot required new functionality to generate new revenue opportunities and reduction of costs by retiring the legacy system within a few quarters. There were five tactics for the pilot. First, establish a cross-functional team including resources from the marketing company and the technology vendor. Second, conduct the pilot with a real client. Third, if the pilot is successful, launch the platform across the larger client base. Fourth, establish a product management function with SMEs & trainers to manage the product line over time with the vendor and facilitate adoption and usage across the client base. Lastly, identify key metrics for monitoring and controlling the new services. The state of the organization was in flux, a merger had just finished with a new owner of the company and there was a significant business evaluation to determine the strategic direction of the marketing company. There was a general sense of anxiety of the employees as they waited for the larger direction and what any impacts would be on their groups. At the end of January there was a small but significant layoff of many of the middle management in the company including Joseph the IT Director as part of this larger strategic direction. The state of the pilot was positive prior to the pilot; the resources worked on a more detailed plan and were in discussions with different client teams to determine which client would be the best candidate for the new technology pilot.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 148

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Color coding relative surveyed Performance Expectancy mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree Represents Access to Information, Resources, or Strong Domain Knowledge connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Red 1-3.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Generated from Netdraw

Figure 23 EMS Pre Pilot Influencing Network

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 149

a. b. c. d. e.

Color coding based on most efficient grouping using Gervin-Newman Clustering Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of whether its Give Help or Get Help Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 24 EMS Pre-Pilot Influencing Groups

4.8.1.4 Event Management System Post-Pilot Influencing Network

Description: Figure 32 EPM Post Pilot Influencing Network, was generated in NetDraw and shows the influencing network 3 months after the beginning of the Event Management System Pilot. This influencing network shows who the actors interact with along pathways within the network that have access to information, resources, and knowledge which are typically unavailable to those on the periphery with longer pathways or isolated from the network altogether (Ibarra and Andrews 1993; Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). This influencing indicates that people in central structural positions in a network will have more influence over system design to meet their needs which is often labeled as co-adoption, thus driving up their usage. The connections are directional based originating at the actor who identified others as someone they interact with whom have access to resources, knowledge and information. The nodes are color-coded based on Performance Expectancy responses for the Event Management System; red for a negative, yellow for neutral, and green for a positive response. The nodes are sized relative to each other based on betweenness centrality which represents how many pairs of nodes they are between (Freeman 1977). Groups

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 150 The coping network has fragmented significantly since the pre-pilot survey. In reviewing this network for groups that naturally belong together, the network participants naturally fall into five groups when evaluated using the Girvan-Newman analysis within Netdraw (Borgatti 2002) as shown Figure 26 EMS Post-Pilot Influencing Groups. The isolates are considered a group for this study. The post-pilot influencing groups are more difficult to generalize into classes then the coping networks and the pre-pilot influencing groups. Not only did the network reduce in density, but it also became more disjoint. There are now nine isolates rather than three at the beginning of the pilot. The isolates are essentially those participants who did not identify any person that they interact with that they give or receive help from regarding the Event Management System. The group is still made up of IT resources and an account team lead that will be impacted by the current or future use of this technology but are not integrated into the coping network yet, but now one of the functional execs as well as Dayna have become isolates. Dayna was very central in pre-pilot influencing network, but has been taken off the project because they wanted to reduce the cost of the pilot. The disjoint group shown in Figure 26 EMS Post-Pilot Influencing Groups which is color-coded as purple is made up of the IT staff and vendor contacts that now have reduced roles in the pilot. This group changed significantly as it was separated from the any connections from the larger network. Many of the IT resources have been taken off the project or left the company. The only remaining central figure is Josh, the IT Analyst who is now only involved on the periphery of the project. He was removed from a full-time role in the Event Management area after voicing some concerns over the direction of the Events Technologies, and his only connection to the larger coping network is a non-reciprocated connection to the Functional Exec who is the primary sponsor of the Event Management System pilot. Linda and Patrick were contractors who were let go, Josh and Dayna were reassigned, and Joseph left the company in a post-merger layoff. The cross-functional operations leadership (blue) is an ego centric group centered on Dawn the functional exec. In the pre-pilot coping network they were part of other groups, but now it seems the central decision maker, Dawn, is the central figure in a six person group of cross-functional managers when it comes to coping with the new Events Management System. Dawns ego influencing network also includes Kim the Data-Ops Lead Manager, who is also part of the data/ops leadership (red) group. This group centered on Kim is central to the larger network and has the most controlling position in the coping network to any information coming from the pilot group and the cross-functional leadership group. Similar to the coping network, one of the most dramatic changes to this network is the separation of the new Events Management System vendor from the larger influencing network. In the pre-pilot, most of their ties in the influencing network were through the IT group, but with most of those individuals removed, they are no longer part of the influencing network and the other groups did not identify the vendor as part of their influencing network. Maria the IT Director is still connected to Lucas the Vendor Executive which gives a pathway to Dawn and Kim for the Vendor, but Marias connection to Dawn is not reciprocated. The only group of individuals that has some semblance to the pre-pilot group is the client-focused group which is primarily made up of the data ops group and different account team, many of which report to Kim. These individuals have worked together for many years and would be the most SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 151 impacted by a change in Event Management Technologies. There is a certain amount of transient membership in the other groups, but this group likely has a significant amount of solidarity and norms. The clusters in the connected network have very low intra-cluster sparsity, where the two groups have generally one connection between each other. At the point of the post-pilot surveys, Kim is the only one playing significant bridging roles between the different groups, with Kim controlling the information flow into the delivery teams. This network also significantly reduced in intra-cluster density in terms of connections with the two groups or clusters. Only the client facing group (grey) in Figure 26 EMS Post-Pilot Influencing Groups, has most everyone connected to all of the others in the group such as the 2-clique that is made up of Santiago, Ava, Patty, Diego, Emma, and Jean Individual Power and Positions Similar to the coping network, the power has shifted substantially from Figure 23 EMS Pre Pilot Influencing Network to Figure 25 EMS Post Pilot Influencing Network. The three most central resources within this network are now Kim, Dawn, and Ava. Santiago was one of the more central figures in the pre-pilot influencing network, but with the fragmentation of the social network, he is now isolated in terms of pathways to others outside of his immediate group with only one pathway through Kim. Josh is no longer central or even connected to the main influencing network, after being removed from the project full-time and taken off much of the solution support for the Events area, his connections are only to others who also have very little influence. As mentioned earlier, he had high personal innovativeness, and was a strong supporter of moving from the legacy Event Management System to the new Event Management System, but it could be that his opinions put himself in conflict with others like Kim, the Data Ops manager on if and how to transition to a new technology. This could have been a factor in being separated from the Events Management Groups and has voiced significant frustration over this situation. Another central person in the earlier pre-pilot group was Dayna, who earlier acted as an intra-cluster bridging role between the two network clusters in Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network, but now she is completely isolated from the influencing network for the new Event Management System as well. She also was an individual with significant domain experience in the events business as well as managing and configuring the previous legacy system as both a business consultant and front-end programmer and at the time of the post-pilot survey, she is focusing on supporting events on the legacy Event Management System. She also was socially tied to many of the resources within the Data/Operations and IT organization and was respected for her knowledge on managing many of the recurring events over the years which made her an efficient analyst. For many years, she also was a very vocal supporter of the previous legacy system. The most central figure in the Figure 25 EMS Post Pilot Influencing Network is Kim, the Data/Ops Lead/Manager who is the supervisor to most of the Data/Ops resources and works on client SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 152 deliverables as well. Looking back at the pre-pilot influencing network where she was a non-central figure in the coping network. She was one of the few people in this smaller pilot group that had negative performance expectancy in Figure 23 EMS Pre Pilot Influencing Network. She was very involved in the evaluation of the new Event Management System, likely because of her experience in the domain as well as the impact it could have on her team, which she felt were significant. As discussed earlier in the pre-pilot, there was significant contention with some of the IT resources and Kim because they felt that Kims perception of the new Event Management System was making their jobs much more difficult. Likely because they continued to have to go to increasing levels of details to address the differences or perceived gaps between the internally developed legacy Event Management System and the newer vendor supplied Event Management System. This list of gaps was central issue in the pre and post pilot timeframes and it was suggested at the time of the postpilot survey to wait until the vendor was able to close more of the perceived gaps before the group moved forward with a larger pilot or using other key clients. In the pre-pilot influencing network, both Santiago and Julie filled structural holes, only Kim filled a structural-hole position. From a social network view, structural holes would be the individuals (or players) that occupy a network position that connects two different groups. This allows them to potentially benefit from a more heterogeneous flow of information from multiple network groups and potentially have more control of information or influence within the larger network. It could be assumed that most of the connections were strong ties because of the wording of the survey questions which asked only for those individuals who were they had frequent interaction with. One might wonder if some of the vendor connections such as Josh and Lucas the Vendor executive were closer to a weak tie relationship. Generally the smaller groups within networks had very small diameters, meaning it didnt take to many steps along a path between any two individuals within the connected network, but the pathways for the vendor and new isolates no longer existed and the pilot group was pushed out to the periphery of the coping network. Performance Expectancy As was shown in the coping network, the Performance Expectancy of individuals changed in several cases, but the larger change was with the actors with high Performance Expectancy moving out of central roles into periphery or out of the network all-together. The directors or above stayed roughly the same as a group. They are the ones who are very involved at the organizational decision of using the new Event Management System for all of the Event clients supported by the Marketing Company. In the pre-pilot survey, the two functional executives responsible for largest departments, Dawn and Richard, do not believe it will help them do their job, likely, because they are fairly removed from the day to day client event support. This was consistent with the post-pilot survey, although Dawn was now neutral on performance expectancy. Kims Performance Expectancy remained negative from the pre-pilot to the post-pilot timeframes even though much of her teams Performance Expectancy is positive or neutral. If Performance Expectancy of an individual impacts the perceptions of neighbors, this makes Kims Performance SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 153 Expectancy more important because now only Kim and Isabelle were identified as part of the influencing network for Dawn who is the key decision maker and sponsor for the Events Management System. There was another connection to Dawn from Maria, but Marias connection was not reciprocated. This is similar to what happened on the Coping Network. Pat, the Account Team VP/Director is also responsible for one of the larger client who has expressed significant frustration over the older legacy system has been in discussions with this client on the potential usage of the new Event Management System, was neutral for her performance expectancy in the pre-pilot, which dropped to a negative performance expectancy in the post-pilot survey. This could be because the client issues around the legacy system reduced or new issues or concerns decreased her perception of the new system. Her client was originally targeted to use the new Event Management System as part of the pilot, but this was changed around the time the pilot started. Pat also surprisingly became an isolate as well in post-pilot coping network. Lucas, the last executive is the network is the Event Management System Vendor executive responsible for growing a relationship and long term contract with the Marketing Company, so it is not surprising that he has positive performance expectancy again. The client facing teams still have a mostly positive or neutral performance expectancy for the new Event Management System, this is likely because the client that currently uses this new Event Management System is still satisfied and a proponent of its use. The remaining people in the pilot cluster still has a positive performance expectancy, with the expectation of Josh who had reduced his performance expectancy from positive to neutral, which might be a reaction to his frustration over the progress of the pilot between the pre and post-pilot timeframes. Visually, you can see that the Performance Expectancy of individuals within Figure 23 EMS Pre Pilot Influencing Network and Figure 25 EMS Post Pilot Influencing Network generally tend to have similar Performance Expectancies as their neighbors, which is important in evaluating the hypothesis that a neighbors Performance Expectancy will impact an individuals behavioral intention. Context at time of survey The state of organizational or contingent decision at the time of the surveys in April was significantly different then at the pre-pilot. At the pre-pilot timeframe, a business case was developed by a cross-functional team including Joseph, Julie, Patrick, Kim, Josh, Dayna, and others that was then approved by the functional execs and president of the company early in January and communicated out to most of the resources in the network. At the time of the post-pilot, the pilot did not reach a conclusion although they had used the new Event Management System for some of the functionality for a new client in conjunction with using the legacy Event Management System, but it was decided that a new pilot would need to be executed again and a new business case put together with a potential rollout in the next year. In reviewing the plans of the previously approved plan, the original pilot can be considered a failure. The original business plan was to invest a substantial amount into a 2 month pilot, but during this timeframe most of the individuals were removed from the project, although a contract was established with the Event Management System Vendor. In the original plan, the future return on SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 154 investment in the pilot required new functionality to generate new revenue opportunities and reduction of costs by retiring the legacy system within a few quarters. At the time of the post pilot survey, it was changed to only partially use the new Event Management System during any subsequent pilots and continuing using the legacy system for the back-office processing which eliminated the possibility of cost savings of retiring the legacy system. The state of the organization was still in flux as the company was settling into a clearer strategic direction of the marketing company. At the point of the pre-pilot survey, there was a general sense of anxiety of the employees as they waited for the larger direction and what any impacts would be on their groups, but at the time of the post-pilot survey, it was becoming clearer, but there was still anxiety. As mentioned earlier, parts of the pilot were completed, such as vendor on-site training and a further understanding of the potential and perceived functional gaps that would need to be addressed with the new Event Management System vendor, but in general the pilot was going to go through a restart and a larger rollout was being delayed until the next year.

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Color coding relative surveyed Performance Expectancy mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree Represents Access to Information, Resources, or Strong Domain Knowledge connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Red 1-3.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Generated from Netdraw

Figure 25 EMS Post Pilot Influencing Network

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 155

a. b. c. d.

Color coding based on most efficient grouping using Gervin-Newman Clustering Represents Access to Information, Resources, or Strong Domain Knowledge connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of whether its Give Help or Get Help Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 26 EMS Post-Pilot Influencing Groups

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 156

4.8.2 Enterprise Project Management

The smaller of the two new technology projects in this study was a 2-3 month project to determine if the marketing company should use an Enterprise Project Management tool, which was piloted by a small team of individuals from the IT organization within the large marketing company in 2010. An Enterprise Project Management tool is essentially a consolidated repository for a portfolio of project plans, change records, issues, and risks across from many different project managers. In this case the company was looking to have the project managers using Microsoft Project Professional to manage project plans in combination with Microsoft Project Server where they are consolidated and leverage a consolidated resource list for their project plans. Microsoft describes MS Project as Microsoft Project Server 2010 provides innovative capabilities across the entire lifecycle to help organizations
effectively initiate, select, plan and deliver projects on time and within budget. Enhance productivity and realize results with Project Server 2010.(Microsoft 2010)

This Enterprise Project Management initiative had been proposed in the two previous years by Joseph the IT director and proposals had been presented by a 3rd party Microsoft implementation consulting vendor twice before, but it wasnt until 2010 that it was able to fit into the budget. A plan was then developed by Maria and Abby from the Marketing Company in conjunction with Bruno and Ester from the implementation consulting vendor. The implementation roadmap consisted of a three phase implementation. Phase 1 was for three months and focused on implementing basic controls and enable project and portfolio visibility for key stakeholders. This did not include any integration to the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system which meant there would be significant manual dual entry of financial data. Phase 2 was for the following four months and included integration to the ERP system in a proof-of-concept level as well as an increased focused on the PMO Processes. Phase 3 was a full integration between the ERP systems. All three phases had specific plans on the extent of EPM tool usage, process updates, and training which were focused on hitting specific business outcomes. For Phase 1, there was an initial set of 11 users that were performing the two month pilot. For technology acceptance research, this became an even more intriguing set of data because at the completion of the pilot, it was decided that the Enterprise Project Management tool would not implemented based on the consensus of the pilot group, costs, and the other external factors such as a company merger that put the follow-on phase on hold then eventually cancelled. The fact that this technology was not accepted by the organization makes this an interesting set of data and case study for this research. A second set of survey data was still collected eight months after the first survey from the pilot group to complete the longitudinal data for this relatively small sample size. For this research the coping and influence relationship data using a the survey by asking the following five questions (Schneider 2009; Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009).
Influencing List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that have access to information needed for effective use of the MS Project Server (e.g., system features, upcoming releases, demo dates, etc.).

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 157

List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you believe have strong domain/functional knowledge for effective use of the MS Project Server (e.g., such as tips and tricks, short-cuts, process sequence, etc.). List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that have access to resources for effective use of the MS Project Server (e.g., training resources, manuals, tutorials, etc.).

Coping List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you get help from for effective use of the <system>. List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you give help too for effective use of the <system>.

The pre-pilot data was collected at the kick-off training session for Phase 1 of the pilot. As mentioned earlier, phase 1 was completed, but the project was cancelled before Phase 2 started. The post-pilot data was not collected until several months after the project was cancelled due to work demands of the researcher.

4.8.2.1 Enterprise Project Management System Pre and Post Pilot Coping Network
The Coping Network for the Enterprise Project Management system pilot is smaller than the Event Management System and essentially includes those individuals who are part of the pilot to evaluate if it would benefit the company to operate from a consolidated repository for a portfolio of project plans, change records, issues, and risks across from many different project managers. In this case the company was looking to have the project managers using Microsoft Project Professional to manage project plans in combination with Microsoft Project Server where they are consolidated and leverage a consolidated resource list for their project plans. There was an initial set of 11 users that were performing the two month pilot which are shown in the in Figure 30 EPM Pre Pilot Influencing Network and Figure 27 EPM Pre Pilot Coping Network . A second set of survey data was still collected eight months after the first survey from the pilot group to complete the longitudinal data for this relatively small sample size which are in Figure 29 EPM Post Pilot Coping and in Figure 32 EPM Post Pilot Influencing Network. Description: The pre and post pilot Coping Networks were generated in NetDraw and shows the coping network Enterprise Project Management pilot project. This coping network shows who the actors interact with in order to help manage (minimize, reduce, master, tolerate) demands emanating from a specific change in the person-environment relationship (Lazarus 1966). The connections are directional based originating at the actor who identified others as someone they get or give help to. The nodes are color-coded based on Performance Expectancy responses for the EPM system; red for a negative, yellow for neutral, and green for a positive response. The nodes are sized relative to each other based on betweenness centrality which represents how many pairs of nodes they are between(Freeman 1977). Groups

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 158 Figure 28 EPM Pre-Pilot Coping Groups shows the four groups in the EPM pilot that were all tied together by Maria who was the main project manager for pilot at the marketing company. Joseph the IT Director was Marias supervisor and was the one who had proposed this project in previous years, but was not directly involved in the pilot and showing up as an isolate here. The four groups relate to different departments within IT and at the vendor. The vendors coping network are shown in black, the Events IT PMs are shown in gray, the loyalty IT PMs are shown in purple. Figure 29 EPM Post Pilot Coping Network shows that the coping network fragmented after the project was cancelled and the only group that remained was the vendor group. All of the Marketing Company employees no longer needed a coping network for Enterprise Project Management, so it dissolved. Individual Power and Positions Figure 27 EPM Pre Pilot Coping Network shows that Maria was the most central resource in the coping network which is intuitive because she is holding all four groups together. Bruno, Susan, Jason, and Ella are central in their smaller clusters but do not have any direct intra-cluster connections other than Maria. Maria clearly filled a structural hole. Some of the others might have filled structural holes for parts of the network that were not included in this survey, as can been seen in Figure 27 EPM Pre Pilot Coping Network where there are grey actors who were identified as part of the coping network, but were not surveyed since a snowball survey approach was not used for the EMP study. From a social network view, structural holes would be the individuals (or players) that occupy a network position that connects two different groups. This allows them to potentially benefit from a more heterogeneous flow of information from multiple network groups and potentially have more control of information or influence within the larger network. It could be assumed that most of the connections were strong ties because of the wording of the survey questions which asked only for those individuals who were they had frequent interaction with. One might wonder if some of the vendor connections such as Marias connection to Alma, Ester, and Bruno were closer to a weak tie relationship. Generally the groups within networks had small diameters, meaning it didnt take to many steps along a path between any two individuals within the connected network, but the intra-cluster pathways were fairly long which could be a limiting factor for this coping network. Figure 29 EPM Post Pilot Coping Network shows that with the cancellation of the project, the only central person in the network was Bruno. Performance Expectancy In looking at Figure 27 EPM Pre Pilot Coping Network the Performance Expectancy was generally positive in all the groups with the exception of the Ella and Owen who were in the IT Loyalty group who were neutral. Unlike the other groups in the study, this group reported up to a different Director within the marketing company.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 159 Figure 29 EPM Post Pilot Coping Network shows the Performance Expectancy after the project was cancelled. The vendor resources were no longer at the marketing company, but were still positive towards an EPM system, which would be expected because they have a practice in the area of Enterprise Project Management with many clients. The Performance Expectancy of most of the individuals within the marketing company now has a negative or neutral view of whether an EPM system will help them do their job. The only exception is Abby, who has used an EPM system at a previous employer and was a significant supporter of starting the initial pilot project. Owen had also left the company before the second survey.

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Color coding relative surveyed Performance Expectancy mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree Represents Access to Information, Resources, or Strong Domain Knowledge connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Red 1-3.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Generated from Netdraw

Figure 27 EPM Pre Pilot Coping Network

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 160

a. b. c. d. e.

Color coding based on most efficient grouping using Gervin-Newman Clustering (.550) Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of whether its Give Help or Get Help Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 28 EPM Pre-Pilot Coping Groups

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 161

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Color coding relative surveyed Performance Expectancy mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree Represents Access to Information, Resources, or Strong Domain Knowledge connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Red 1-3.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Generated from Netdraw

Figure 29 EPM Post Pilot Coping Network

4.8.2.3 Enterprise Project Management System Pre and Post Pilot Influencing Network
There was an initial set of 11 users that were performing the two month pilot which are shown in Figure 30 EPM Pre Pilot Influencing Network. A second set of survey data was still collected 7-8 months after the first survey from the pilot group to complete the longitudinal data for this relatively small sample size which is shown in Figure 32 EPM Post Pilot Influencing Network. Description: Figure 30 EPM Pre Pilot Influencing Network, was generated in NetDraw and shows the influencing network at the beginning of the Enterprise Project Management Pilot. The influence network is based on asking the respondents to list 1-3 people they interact with frequently that have access to information, knowledge and resources related to EPM. This influencing network shows who the actors interact with along pathways within the network that have access to information, resources, and knowledge which are typically unavailable to those on the periphery with longer pathways or isolated from the network altogether (Ibarra and Andrews 1993; Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). This influencing indicates that people in central structural positions in a network will have more influence over system design to their needs which is often labeled as co-adoption, thus driving up their usage. The connections are directional based originating at the actor who identified others as someone they identified. The nodes are colorSNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 162 coded based on Performance Expectancy responses for the Enterprise Project Management System; red for a negative, yellow for neutral, and green for a positive response. The nodes are sized relative to each other based on betweenness centrality which represents how many pairs of nodes they are between(Freeman 1977).

Groups Figure 31 EPM Pre-Pilot Influencing Groups shows the three groups in the EPM centered on Maria who was the main project manager for pilot at the marketing company. The three groups relate to different departments within IT and at the vendor. The vendors influencing network is shown in red which also includes Abby and Maria who have been working with them. The Engagement & Events IT PMs are shown in blue and the loyalty IT PMs are shown in purple. Figure 32 EPM Post Pilot Influencing Network shows that the influencing network fragmented after the project was cancelled. Unlike the coping networks, which completely dissolved in the marketing company, the influencing network clusters still existed after the project was cancelled. Individual Power and Positions Figure 30 EPM Pre Pilot Influencing Network shows that Maria was the most central resource in the coping network which is intuitive. Ester, Susan, and Ella are central in their smaller clusters. Maria clearly filled a structural hole. Some of the others might have filled structural holes for parts of the network that were not included in this survey, as can been seen in Figure 30 EPM Pre Pilot Influencing Network where there are grey actors who were identified as part of the coping network, but were not surveyed since a snowball survey approach was not used for the EMP study. From a social network view, structural holes would be the individuals (or players) that occupy a network position that connects two different groups. This allows them to potentially benefit from a more heterogeneous flow of information from multiple network groups and potentially have more control of information or influence within the larger network. It could be assumed that most of the connections were strong ties because of the wording of the survey questions which asked only for those connections they had frequent interaction with. One might wonder if some of the vendor connections such as Marias connection to Alma, Ester, and Bruno were closer to a weak tie relationship. Generally the groups within networks had small diameters, meaning it didnt take to many steps along a path between any two individuals within the connected network, but the intra-cluster pathways were fairly long which could be a limiting factor for this coping network especially from resources within the black color-coded group shown in Figure 31 EPM Pre-Pilot Influencing Groups. Figure 32 EPM Post Pilot Influencing Network shows that with the cancellation of the project, the only central people in the disjoint network were Bruno from the vendors and Ella for the IT Loyalty PMs. Performance Expectancy

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 163 In looking at Figure 30 EPM Pre Pilot Influencing Network the Performance Expectancy was generally positive in all the groups with the exception of the Ella and Owen who were in the IT Loyalty group who were neutral. Unlike the other groups in the study, this group reported up to a different Director within the marketing company. Figure 32 EPM Post Pilot Influencing Network shows the Performance Expectancy after the project was cancelled. The vendor resources were no longer at the marketing company, but were still positive towards an EPM system, which would be expected because they have a practice in the area of Enterprise Project Management with many clients. The Performance Expectancy of most of the individuals within the marketing company now has a negative or neutral view of whether an EPM system will help them do their job. The only exception is Abby, who has used an EPM system at a previous employer and was a significant supporter of the starting the project. Owen had also left the company before the second survey and he was in a new role that wouldnt need an EPM system .

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Color coding relative surveyed Performance Expectancy mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree Represents Access to Information, Resources, or Strong Domain Knowledge connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Red 1-3.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Generated from Netdraw

Figure 30 EPM Pre Pilot Influencing Network

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 164

a. b. c. d.

Color coding based on most efficient grouping using Gervin-Newman Clustering Represents Access to Information, Resources, or Strong Domain Knowledge connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of whether its Give Help or Get Help Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 31 EPM Pre-Pilot Influencing Groups

a. b. c. d.

Color coding relative surveyed Performance Expectancy mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree Represents Access to Information, Resources, or Strong Domain Knowledge connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 165

e. f. Red 1-3.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Generated from Netdraw

Figure 32 EPM Post Pilot Influencing Network

4.10 Social Network Mapping Survey Results to Networks

The purpose of this section is to present and look for insight by mapping the UTAUT factors of Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Facilitating Conditions, Behavioral Intention, and Implicit Social Influence to the pre and post-pilot coping networks for the Event Management System. Performance Expectancy is not mapped to the coping networks in this section because it is covered in the previously presented social network graphs as the default color coding for the actors. The graphs for the Enterprise Project Management System are also not presented in this section, but instead presented in the Appendix for reference. Also, the coping and influencing networks are highly correlated as shown in Table 23 Correlation Matrix so only the coping network is used for this part of the study for parsimony.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 166

4.10.1 Effort Expectancy

The Effort Expectancy measures are based on the following survey questions.
My interaction with the system would be clear and understandable. It would be easy for me to become skillful at using the system. I would find the system easy to use. Learning to operate the system is easy for me.

The Effort Expectancy of the Events Management Technology has started fairly positive and stayed positive from the pre to the post pilot surveys as shown in Figure 33 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Effort Expectancy Mapping and Figure 34 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Effort Expectancy Mapping. It can be seen in the EMS pre-pilot network that Effort Expectancy is high in the core of the network, and those that are on the periphery have lower Effort Expectancy, which supports the research question that the centrality in the coping network impacts the Effort Expectancy.

Color coding based on factor mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree. Red 13.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 33 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Effort Expectancy Mapping

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 167

Color coding based on factor mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree. Red 13.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 34 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Effort Expectancy Mapping

4.10.2 Social Influence

The Social Influence measures are based on the following survey questions.
People who influence my behavior think that I should use the system. People who are important to me think that I should use the system. The senior management of this business has been helpful in the use of the system. In general, the organization has supported the use of the system.

The Social Influence of the Events Management Technology has started fairly positive and stayed positive from the pre to the post pilot surveys with the exception of some of the IT staff who had reduced involvement in the project such as Josh and the actors on the account team such as Pat. This is shown in Figure 35 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Social Influence Mapping and Figure 36 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Social Influence Mapping.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 168

Color coding based on factor mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree. Red 13.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 35 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Social Influence Mapping

Color coding based on factor mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree. Red 13.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 169

Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 36 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Social Influence Mapping

4.10.3 Facilitating Conditions

The Facilitating Conditions measures are based on the following survey questions.
I have the resources necessary to use the system. I have the knowledge necessary to use the system. The system is not compatible with other systems I use. A specific person (or group) is available for assistance with system difficulties.

The third question was reverse-coded to allow aggregation with the other three questions. The Facilitating Conditions of the Events Management Technology has started fairly positive and stayed positive from the pre to the post pilot surveys with the exception of Kim who increased her facilitating conditions from negative to positive in the post-pilot survey which also correlates to her moving into a more central role in the coping network. This is shown in Figure 37 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Facilitating Conditions Mapping and Figure 38 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Facilitating Conditions Mapping.

Color coding based on factor mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree. Red 13.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 37 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Facilitating Conditions Mapping

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 170

Color coding based on factor mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree. Red 13.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 38 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Facilitating Conditions Mapping

4.10.4 Behavioral Intention

The Behavioral Intention measures are based on the following survey questions.
I intend to use the system in the next <n> months. I predict I would use the system in the next <n> months. I plan to use the system in the next <n> months

The Behavioral Intention of the Events Management Technology has started fairly positive and stayed positive from the pre to the post pilot surveys with the exception of IT staff that had dramatically reduced their role in the pilot project such as Josh, Dayna, and Joseph as well as account team resources who are now disconnected from the coping network such as Pat. This is shown in Figure 39 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Behavioral Intention Mapping and Figure 40 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Behavioral Intention Mapping.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 171

Color coding based on factor mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree. Red 13.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 39 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Behavioral Intention Mapping

Color coding based on factor mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree. Red 13.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 172

Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 40 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Behavioral Intention Mapping

4.10.5 Implicit social influence

The Implicit Social Influence measures are based on the following survey questions.
My colleagues are frequently using the software for their job-related tasks. My co-workers are frequently using the software for their job-related tasks. My supervisor is frequently using the software for his or her job-related tasks. My subordinates are frequently using the software for their job-related tasks. My companys executives are frequently using the software for their job-related tasks.

The Implicit Social Influence of the Events Management Technology has started fairly negative in the core of the network and actually showed signs in improving in the core including such core people as Dawn the functional executive. This is shown in Figure 41 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Implicit Social Influence Mapping and Figure 38 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Facilitating Conditions Mapping.

Color coding based on factor mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree. Red 13.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 41 Pre-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Implicit Social Influence Mapping

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 173

Color coding based on factor mean measured from 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree. Red 13.49, Yellow 3.50-4.50, Green 4.51-7.00, Grey N/A Connections represents Give Help and Get Help connections identified as part of survey Connection originate from person identifying connection regardless of mode Relative node sizes based on betweenness centrality, calculated within Netdraw Generated from Netdraw

Figure 42 Post-Pilot Event Management System Coping Network with Implicit Social Influence Mapping

4.11 Hypothesis Testing

RQ1-3: Coping and Influencing Network impact on the traditional UTAUT model factors?
Table 29 - Hypothesis Results presents the results of the hypothesis presented in the design of this study to address the research questions. A summary of the constructs and their significant relationships can also been seen in Figure 18 - Statistically Significant R2 Regression Results. The first four hypothesis are based on a traditional UTAUT model (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) which is also shown in Figure 9 - Venkatesh conceptual model for the Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT)(Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) . Of these four hypothesis, it would be expected that Performance Expectancy will impact Behavioral Intention (H1) was accepted because with a large positive impact and a high significance level. This was validated and the hypothesis is accepted. The Effort Expectancys positive impact on Behavioral Intention (H2) is historically smaller as was the case in this study and there was not a significant enough relationship so it was rejected. The Social Influences positive impact on Behavior Intention (H3) was accepted with a satisfactory confidence level, so it was also accepted. Lastly, the Facilitating Conditions impact on System Use (H4) was also rejected with a unsatisfactory confidence level. These four hypotheses are consistent with results from studies of TAM or UTAUT where Performance SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 174 Expectancy will have a significant and large impact on Behavioral Intention, but the remaining three factors; Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, and Facilitating conditions would be more susceptible to not having significant impacts on behavioral intentions or system use. Most of the other hypotheses were rejected as there were not significant relationships between the social network predictor factors and the UTAUT dependent variables with the exception of two hypotheses. The Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network did positively impact Performance Expectancy, where it explained 11.1% of the variance with a correlation that was significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The other accepted hypothesis is that the Coping Network Centrality did positively Impact the Effort Expectancy where it explained 6.2% of the variance with at correlation that was significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). There were a few other significant relationships that were revealed in the hierarchical regressions that are important, but not part of the hypothesis. The most significant is that the neig hbors average performance expectancy in the coping network explained 14.6% of an actors own performance expectancy.
Table 29 - Hypothesis Results

Hyp.

RQ

Model

Hypothesis, Research Question

Accepted / Rejected

Impact

H1

Traditional UTAUT Traditional UTAUT Traditional UTAUT Traditional UTAUT RQ1a Extended UTAUT Extended UTAUT Extended UTAUT

Performance Expectancy will Positively Impact Behavioral Intention Effort Expectancy will Positively Impact Behavioral Intention Social Influence will Positively Impact Behavioral Intention Facilitating Conditions will positively impact System Use Influence Network Centrality will positively impact Behavioral Intention Influence Network Centrality will positively impact System Use Neighbors Average Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network will positively impact the Behavioral Intention The Neighbors Average Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network will positively impact System Use The Influence Network Centrality will positively impact Performance

Accepted

.258 **

H2

Rejected

H3

Accepted

.083**

H4

Rejected

H4

Rejected

H5

RQ1b

Rejected

H6

RQ1c

Rejected

H7

RQ1d

Extended UTAUT

Rejected

H8

RQ2a

Extended

Rejected

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 175

UTAUT H9 RQ2b Extended UTAUT Expectancy The Neighbors Average Performance Expectancy in the Influencing Network will positively impact Performance Expectancy The Coping Network Centrality will Positively Impact the Effort Expectancy The Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Coping Network will Positively Impact the Effort Expectancy The Coping Network Centrality will Positively Impact the Facilitating Conditions The Neighbors Performance Expectancy in the Coping Network will Positively Impact the Facilitating Conditions Accepted .111**

H10

RQ3a

Extended UTAUT Extended UTAUT

Accepted

.062*

H11

RQ3b

Rejected

H12

RQ3c

Extended UTAUT

Rejected

H13

RQ3d

Extended UTAUT

Rejected

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

RQ4: Influencing Network Effects on Project Success

The fourth research question was more qualitative then quantitative, but was used uncover the potential of using social network graphs merged with technology acceptance perceptions. The question focuses on determining if the combination of network graphs and TAM would add valuable insight to managers in the process of planning, executing, and monitoring a technology acceptance project and potentially increase the likelihood of identifying potential problems, opportunities, or key resources for specific roles to help in their day-to-day decision making. This was summarized as: R4: For organizational technology acceptance in the early phases of a contingent acceptance of a new technology, would using a social network graphs of the influencing and coping networks with the UTUAT perception data improve the likelihood of success of the project? The visual validation of mapping the UTAUT measures such as Performance Expectancy onto the Influencing and Coping Network graphs does provide additional insight which could be used to improve the likelihood of success of a technology acceptance project. Having an understanding of perceptions is valuable for managers in planning for communications and change. If these same managers also have a better understanding of Influencing and Coping networks, this also gives them additional insight via a structural analysis looking for central figures, groups, isolates, network density and other network metrics. So combining the technology acceptance and the social network measures has yielded additional insight that is greater than the sum of its parts.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 176

4.13 Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to provide the systematic analysis of the data collected during the research. The data analysis started with three sections to look at the data management prior to entry, the initial data analysis for suitability, and reliability for the different loadings. These sections were then followed by the descriptive statistics and correlations. Following the correlation analysis was the regression analysis which determined the explanatory power of the different factors via hierarchical regressions. The statistical analysis was then completed using multiple regression analysis to determine the adjusted R^2 of each model to understand the predictability of each model. In addition to the core statistical analysis, this chapter also reviewed the social network analysis results to provide more insight into the data and answer the research questions. These included analyzing the coping and influencing social network graphs for the two technologies as well as mapping of the UTAUT responses to the social network graphs.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 177

CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a discussion of the research results. First, the chapter discusses the overall study findings, which is followed by a discussion on what the results means to organizations. The next two sections discuss how the results fit with the theories underlying them as well as past IS research. The chapter is concluded with a summary.

5.2 What the overall study found

The goal of this study was to see if social network analysis on the informal influence and coping networks provide explanatory benefits in various scenarios of technology acceptance. These scenarios include studying the perceptions and social networks of struggling or failing contingent technology acceptance projects at their early stages which could benefit by looking at them through the lens of social network analysis and UTAUT. The projects chosen for this study both had a pilot phase where the user acceptance was in process in parallel with a larger organizational decision to adopt the technology. The first project that was used to collect technology acceptance data was the implementation of an enterprise project management tool, which was piloted by a small team of individuals from the IT organization within the larger marketing company in 2010. This project was cancelled after the pilot. The second and larger of the two technology acceptance projects was to replace the current 9-year old internally built Event Management System with a commercially available Event Management System. Event Management or Registration Systems are used by meeting planners for meetings, events, user conferences, and tradeshows to manage the registration of participants and their subsequent travel arrangements, activities, sessions, billing etc. The planned implementation and timeline were dramatically cut back after the initial pilot timeframe. The results of the longitudinal evaluation of the Coping and Influencing Networks merged with measuring the UTAUT factors yielded five key findings which highlight how the two models complement each other to yield more insight when used together.

Social Networks are relevant to Technology Acceptance

The measures from the Social Network modeling of the Influencing and Coping networks were shown to provide significant explanatory power on UTAUT factors such as Performance Expectancy and Behavioral Intention. In addition, the UTAUT measures were also able to add valuable context to the social network graphs demonstrating how central individuals perceptions influenced the overall perceptions and information flowing regarding a new technology. Together the two showed how technology acceptance is not an individual activity, but is a social activity which includes central figures attempting to control information and influence their networks based on their own perceptions of the new technology.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 178

The performance expectancy of an individuals network neighbors impacts their performance expectancy
The Average Performance Expectancy of an individual in the Influencing and Coping Network explained 26% of that individuals variance in Performance Expectancy. This was also hypothesized because Performance Expectancy has continually been the largest driver of Behavioral Intention and if a worker is going to influence a colleague about a technology, one could expect that they would express their satisfaction/dissatisfaction in how well a new technology helps them accomplish their job. Once again, stepping back and looking at the Performance Expectancy through the lens of the pre and post-pilot Influencing Social Network graphs provides an additional view that supports this finding. This is visually shown in the pre and post- pilot views of the Event Management System in Figure 23 EMS Pre Pilot Influencing Network and Figure 25 EMS Post Pilot Influencing Network. In these figures, the Performance Expectancy values are visually clustered together. In the pre-pilot view, there are grouping of positive Performance Expectancy Groups such as Dayna, Julie, Josh, Justin, and Lucas. There are also negative groups such as Richard, James, Dawn, Kim, James, Linda, Isabelle and Jen.

Social Network Analysis gives a new visibility of Technology Acceptance at both the macro and micro levels.
Explanatory power of technology acceptance necessitates both a micro and macro-level understanding of the decision making process to accept a technology. Rather than taking the more common aggregate view of modeling technology acceptance, as is common with the Bass Model or its descendants for diffusion of innovations as described in Meades 2006 meta-analysis (Meade and Islam 2006), this study focused on individual social network analysis to create more understanding of both the micro and macro-levels of technology acceptance from a single approach and model. At the macro- level this study can compare the organizational adoption or aggregate individual acceptance to Behavioral Intention, Performance Expectancy, and others, but it can also show the dynamics at the micro-level. We can also see how particular individuals are separated from the coping network, or how central actors such as Kim in Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network, can influence the two decision makers in the organizational adoption through her connections as well as eventually influencing the technology acceptance of individuals by controlling much of the information in Figure 21 EMS Post-Pilot Coping Network.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 179

Inhibitors or structural problems of the Coping and Influencing Network that could negatively impact the organizational adoption or individual technology acceptance become visible in the network graphs
The combination of the network graphs and the UTAUT perceptions showed three inhibiting conditions for technology acceptance and organizational adoption in the Event Management System. First, the main decision makers at the organizational level were primarily connected to individuals who had a negative performance expectancy of the system. Second, the central individuals who had positive performance expectancy were removed from the project. Third, the network became fragmented and the groups became disconnected from the technology vendor and other resources to help understand how to effectively use the system. These three changes coincided with the reduced scope and postponement of the pilot. The first of these inhibitors is visible in Figure 21 EMS Post-Pilot Coping Network where we can see that Dawn, who is the main decision maker for the organizational adoption, only identified Isabelle, Kim, and Leah, each having primarily negative performance expectancy, as part of her coping network. Richard, the second decision maker for the organizational adoption, originally was connected to the coping network through Dawn and James (Figure 19 EMS Pre Pilot Coping Network) whom also had negative or neutral connections at the time of the pre-pilot. Based on this, Dawn and Richard would likely be getting a negative impression of the New Event Management System because of their immediate connections to the coping network, even though the larger majority of the coping network was positive in terms of performance expectancy. This is likely a factor for the organizational decision makers to delay and scale-back usage of the technology at the organizational level. The second and third inhibitors became apparent when two of the central resources, that had positive performance expectancy, were removed from the pilot to save money at the request of Kim who had negative performance expectancy. This change likely reduced the friction on the project significantly between those central individuals that had positive and negative performance expectancy, but it fragmented the coping network and left it centered on individuals with a negative Performance Expectancy. This fragmentation also separated the vendor from the influencing network. For the Event Management System, the future was at risk; with the vendor now separated from the network, more resources isolated, and the central person who controls the majority of the information having a negative Performance Expectancy, it would be expected that this technology would have a higher risk of failure.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 180

Social Network Analysis of the Influencing and Coping Networks show ties between the organizational adoption and individual acceptance in contingent technology acceptance.
In the case of these two pilots, both the organizational adoption decision and the individual acceptance of the individuals in the pilot were happening in parallel. On the same Coping Network graph, the organizational decision makers and their ties to the individuals within the pilot were visible. Some individuals, such as Kim in the Event Management System, had ties to both groups and could use them to influence either the individual acceptance or the organizational adoption.

5.3 What do these results mean to organizations

To the target organization, these results provide a new view of the individual and organizational perspective on these two technologies. This insight could have changed the outcome of the two pilots or led to better decision making. For example, the organization could have been more focused on the differing needs of the users, understood the true perceptions of the technology, and understood change inhibitors early in the project. For organizations in general, the following section discusses how the theory is extended, what aspects of theory are falsified, what were the false leads, how practitioners can benefit from this type of analysis, and the characteristics of the technologies this could apply to.

How the theory is extended

There are three areas where this study is extending our understanding of technology acceptance. First, this combination of social network modeling and UTAUT factors show that individual technology acceptance is impacted at the micro-level by an individuals neighbors. Second, this study also shows that the structural analysis of the overall influencing or coping network show that technology acceptance can be impacted by the overall structure of the network such as how fragmented it is at the macro-level. Third, social influence can potentially be measured more effectively via social network analysis of the Influencing and Coping Network rather than the traditional Social Influence measures in UTAUT or the Implicit Social Influence measures from (Kim, Jahng et al. 2007).

What aspects are falsified

This study challenges the traditional Social Influence measures. As mentioned in the previous section, social influence can potentially be measured more effectively via social network analysis of the Influencing and Coping Network rather than the traditional Social Influence measures in UTAUT or the Implicit Social Influence measures from (Kim, Jahng et al. 2007). The underlying reasons could be in how social influence happens in technology acceptance. In the traditional UTAUT Social Influence measures or Implicit Social Influence Measures suggest that system usage of those around an individual influences their Behavioral Intention. This study shows that the Performance Expectancy of those around an individual influences their Performance Expectancy. The significance of this is that an individual will use their Coping and Influencing Networks to determine if they think

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 181 a new technology will help them do their jobs more effectively, but not directly determine if they are going to use the system.

False Leads
There were two other modeling approaches evaluated as a way to model the interactions between the individuals prior to selecting social network analysis. Agent-based-modeling was explored where each individual would be modeled with utility equations which would be dependent on the individual that they are connected to. Dynamic engineering modeling tools such as finite element tools were also explored where each individual would be structurally connected as elements with connections sized to reflect the connection strength. Both of these approaches were prototyped, but later eliminated because of their previously limited use in understanding organizational networks.

How does the organizational context restrict you and may create false possibilities for future researchers?
There are three aspects of the context that could make these results not directly apply to other environments. These include the high pressure environment, the high personal innovativeness of some individuals involved, and the complex nature of voluntariness in this contingent acceptance. Ibarra best described the stressful environment in his 1993 research which was also in an Marketing / Ad company as an environment where the dynamic nature of the clients causes a high pressure culture where a client can end their relationship abruptly and the assurance of employment is weak especially for those working on the client that left (Ibarra 1993). This context also has individuals whose roles requires a high personal innovativeness in developing, integrating and launching customized consumer loyalty systems, sales/channel incentive programs, and employee engagement systems within a few months for clients. These individuals are accustomed to using new technologies which could cause friction with operations staff that could have a lower personal innovativeness. Lastly, the context has a complex understanding of voluntariness. The IT and functional leadership can communicate that a new technology is mandatory, but there is a understanding in Marketing companies that the client is always right and if they request a different technology, that supersedes any internal mandate. This does allow client-facing teams to influence their clients on what technology to request.

How practitioners can translate these findings directly to innovations and processes that you targeted, and what analogous tasks the findings can be extended to
The exciting aspect of using social network analysis and UTAUT measures for practitioners is that the survey questions are simple and non-threatening which gives the approach utility for practitioners. Eight immediate ways to translate these findings include involving the central actors, identifying subject matter experts, the best people to help co-adopt the technology, identify isolates, SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 182 understand how to better use vendors, identify training groups, and customize training and communications programs.

Involve, train, incentivize central people

Once a manager knows who the central individuals are and what their perceptions of the new technology are, they can focus limited resources on involving and training these individuals on the new technology. Also if these individuals have a negative Performance Expectancy, then the manager can get help to understand the reasons for the negative Performance Expectancy, provide additional training, or even incentivize the individual or make it part of their annual objectives to help the organization transition to the new technology.

Central people in coping network are best subject matter experts for others
The central individuals in the Coping Network have already been identified by their coworkers as where the others go for help, so a manager should involve the individual in the new technology project and free up some of their workload so they have the time to help others with using the new technology.

Central people in influencing network should steer co-adoption of the innovation

Those central individuals in the Influencing Network are viewed by their coworkers as individuals who have significant domain knowledge and access to resources and information. A manager can take advantage of this by involving these individuals in the new technology project to help steer the co-adoption of the technology to match the needs of the organization.

Connect the isolates with the central coping people

The Coping Network graphs will also identify those individuals who were not able to name anyone they interact frequently that they get help from in using the new technology. In this case, a manager could improve the coping network by pairing these isolates to central individuals in the coping network with the expectation that the central individual checks in with the isolated resource on a regular frequency.

Vendors need to connect to multiple groups in coping network

The new technology vendors are a valuable resource when it comes to finding way to help individuals understand how to do their job in a new system. Often these vendors only have a few connections to the network which is visible in both the Event Management and Enterprise Project Management System social network graphs. A manager could finds ways to make sure the vendor has connections to every natural group so the individuals have short network paths to access the vendor for questions.

Train the natural groups together

The social network graphs show the natural groups of the organizations that interact frequently and have been shown to have similar Performance Expectancy values. A manager should consider these groups as logical training groups which allow groups to adopt technologies together. This follows the suggestion by Delre in his research where he demonstrated the benefits of targeting small SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 183 cohesive groups of consumers in distant areas of the market as the optimal strategy for gaining acceptance of an innovation which was referred to as throwing rocks rather than gravel (Delre, Jager et al. 2007).

Customize training & communications based on users perceptions and usage

An organization can also provide better planning for new technologies in terms of technology change management, roll-out planning, or communication plans. Operationally, a combination of user perceptions and appropriate social network graphs could be used in the planning and testing of specific communication plans, training plans, and efficient deployment of change agents. Communications and training plans could be more effectively targeted based on network and perception roles. For example the isolated resources would require more hands-on training then someone who already has a high usage and is very central in the coping network.

Which technology characteristics were of critical importance

The Event Management System and the Enterprise Project Management System are both commercially available systems. Both are also considered group technologies that require a critical mass of organizational users to make them valuable as opposed to individual productivity tools. The Enterprise Project Management System is essentially a consolidated repository for a portfolio of project plans, change records, issues, and risks from many different project managers within an organization. For the pilot, the team was using a Software-As-A-Service instance from a hosting vendor. The Event Management System was also a Software-As-A-Service that was targeted to replace the current 9-year old internally built Event Management System (EMS). Event Management System systems are used by meeting planners for meetings, events, user conferences, and tradeshows to manage the registration of participants and their subsequent travel arrangements, activities, sessions, billing, and other event activities. Damanpour provided a categorization of innovations by classifying them as Administrative Innovations and Technical Innovations. In the case of the Event Management System, it is a Technical Innovation because it directly related to new products, services and the production process technologies (Damanpour 1987). Alternatively, Administrative Innovations are more internally focused on internal management, which better describes the Enterprise Project Management System. Damanpour also pointed out that often those with formal authority tend to be more involved in Administrative Innovations like the Enterprise Project Management, whereas Technical Innovations such as the Event Management System tend to require more informal network power and centrality.

The sustaining and disruptive nature of the innovation studied

Both the Event Management System and the Enterprise Project Management System required changes to established enterprise projects with significant integrations to other enterprise systems. The Event Management System would be more disruptive to the organization due to its central role in the large Meetings and Events line of business. It would require changes in the finance

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 184 department, call center, event operations, travel operations, IT, and other groups as well as potentially eliminate jobs.

5.4 How these results fit with theories and results underlying or relevant to them
Diffusion of Innovation & Technology Acceptance Models
In the evolutionary variations based on the Technology Acceptance Model, perceived usability and perceived ease of use continued to show up as the most common factors of technology acceptance, while a host of other factors and moderators have been evaluated since the introduction of the Technology Acceptance Model. Eight of these model variations were evaluated and consolidated into the United Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) in 2003. This model used four core determinants of Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Norm, and Facilitating Conditions to explain up to 70% of the variance in user intention (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003), with performance expectancy continuing to be the largest factor. This research showed similar results, where the UTAUT factors without any moderators were able to explain 58.5% of the variance in behavioral intention with performance expectancy being the largest factor. The research was not able to show a significant relationship with effort expectancy, but did show social influence driving 8.3% of the variance of behavioral intention, thus further validating the earlier UTAUT model factors. One thing that was interesting was likely caused by the contingent nature of the organizational and individual decisions, there were significant effects of Voluntariness of Use on Behavioral Intention as well as Department as an antecedent to Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, and Facilitating Conditions. At the time of these pilots, these different departments were grappling with the larger organizational decisions and it was unclear if using these technologies would be mandatory in the long-run. Some of these differences could be a result of the early stage of these technology acceptance initiatives which has been a known area of interest as pointed out in the need to address the impacts of the social impacts and acceptance in earlier stages of a contingent technology acceptance initiatives (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003; Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009).

Model of Acceptance with Peer Support (MAPS)

The Influence Network Centrality was tested in all the hierarchical regression models but was not shown to have any significant relationships on the dependent variables of Behavioral Intention, Use Behavior, Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, and Facilitating Conditions. This means that the participants centrality or lack of centrality within the influencing network does not seem to have an impact on any of the constructs. The Coping Network Centrality did have statistically significant relationships with Effort Expectancy and Facilitating Conditions. The Coping Centrality did explain 6.2% of the variance in Effort Expectancy at a .05 confidence level, but this is somewhat diffused in this study because Effort Expectancy was not shown to have a statistically significant relationship with other key variables SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 185 such as behavioral intention. The Coping Centrality also explained 5.4% of the variance in Facilitating Conditions, but only at a .10 confidence level. Both of these relationships were hypothesized because it would be expected that the centrality in a coping network would give a user closer access to Facilitating Conditions such as help or resources which in turn could avoid Ease of Use problems with a system that could reduce a users Effort Expectancy. These are different results from the recent example of this Model of Acceptance with Peer Support (MAPS) which showed that network centrality explained 15 to 17% of the system use (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). This does not mean that the results are in conflict because the studies have significant differences, such as the survey technique, the other factors used in the regressions, and the conceptual model used.

5.5 How the results fit with or not fit with past evidence in IS, and why
There has been significant research around organizational adoption and individual technology acceptance. Overall, the context and results of this study are not only consistent with the underlying theories as shown in previous sections, it is also fits with past research for the IS industry. This includes the research showing that organizational adoption is complex with many phases, early phases of contingent technology acceptance increases the complexity, new technology initiatives continue to fail or be underutilized, and innovation and technology acceptance is important for success and ROI.

Organizational Adoption is complex with many phases

The organizational adoption of these two technologies included multiple phases of rollouts after the original pilot. Both started with organizational agreement and funding to move forward with the pilots and assumed that these would continue into the later phases as well. Originally the technology suppliers or implementers were significantly involved in the decision at the organizational and individual coping networks, but this changed during the pilot or soon after, which change the dynamics significantly. The reversal or dramatic scope reduction of these projects emphasize that external factors or internal dynamics can dramatically alter what looks like a very straightforward phased decision process at the organizational level. As mentioned earlier, adoption is often used to describe to the decision of an organization to make use of an innovation. If acceptance of individuals in that organization is contingent upon a prior organization adoption, its referred to as contingent innovation decision or forced adoption (Ram and Jung 1991; Rogers 2003). This study confirmed and provided an example how organizational adoption is significantly different then user acceptance and the decision process could vary from organization to organization because different factors or technology attributes could be important to each. This study also aligns well to the results to Frambach and Schillewaerts study, which proposed a widely cited multi-level framework of determinants which provided two levels of acceptance factors to address both the individual and organizational acceptance (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). The factors at the organizational level included both perceived innovation characteristics and adopter characteristics. The perceived innovation characteristics of compatibility, complexity, observability, and trial ability are likely what the functional gap analysis within the Event Management System was SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 186 evaluating or the goal of the hands-on pilot in the Enterprise Project Management pilot. The organization adopter characteristics that impact organizational adoption are organization size (Kennedy 1983), organization structure (Zaltman, Duncan et al. 1973), and organizational innovativeness (Morrison 1996). With only two projects, the organizational adopter characteristics were not evaluated in this study. These results also fit with the research on the longitudinal nature and process of organizational and individual adoption which is not widely understood, which adds additional layers of complexity. Most studies focus on dichotomous adoption/non-adoption process but we know little about effect of different factors at the various stages (Olshavsky and Spreng 1996). Further research had been suggested on organizational adoption in several areas, such as why some technologies do not become adopted (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002), pre-adoption stage, influence of supplier activities on innovation adoption within the organization, critical mass on innovation adoption and the impact of network externalities (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). This study provided an example where the micro network dynamics and change in power likely impacted the overall success of these pilots.

Early phases of contingent technology adoption/acceptance is complex

The early phases of these two new technology initiatives started out positively, but the organizational and individual dynamics showed dramatic changes in coping and influencing networks as well as significant changes in control and perceptions of the projects between the beginning and end of the pilots. There was evidence in the social networks of the cross-dependencies between the individual acceptance in pilots and the larger organizational decision. This is consistent with past research in this area. Organizational adoption of innovations is more complex than individual adoption because of such as the higher number of stages involved in the adoption decision, and the effects of organizational structure (Ram and Jung 1991). The Event Management System pilot had a plan for the pilot and subsequent phases, but external dynamics and changes within the project by the time the pilot was complete called for a reevaluation the rollout at a later date that invalidated what was thought to be a straightforward plan. In an organization there are significant dependencies between the two decision processes at both the organizational and individual level, for example the managers central to the organizational decision process could have significant influence on the individual decision process by categorizing it, setting some of the evaluation criteria when comparing it to a previous technology, and clearly communicating some of its benefits and appropriate use (Olshavsky and Spreng 1996). With the power changes in the Event Management Systems and who the organizational decisions makers were connected to in the coping and influencing networks showed that the individuals going through acceptance can influence the larger organizational decision.

New technology acceptance initiatives are continuing to fail or be underutilized

These two new technology projects support the challenge that prior research had shown on the failure of new technology initiatives or the underutilization of new technologies. For the Event SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 187 Management System, it was dramatically reduced in scope leaving much of the functionality demands on the older legacy system, which eliminates the ability to get a positive ROI by bringing in a new technology. Essentially the underutilization will likely cost more to support then just having the legacy system. Devaraj and Kohli also remind us that its not the investment in the technology, its the usage. Research has been able to tie impacts of technology on organizational performance (Devaraj and Kohli 2003), but when looking at IT Payoff, the dollars invested in IT is not a good measure of the effectiveness of IT, its the usage thats critical (Devaraj and Kohli 2003) which was shown to be limited after both of these pilots. There are many reasons for a failed technical projects but lack of acceptance or non-involvement of users is a common source of failure. Non-adoption or acceptance could mean many different things to individual non-adopters because they might have actively or passively decided to reject the innovation, alternatively it could be that they have not reached that point in the adoption process yet (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). What is important is that when a new technology project outright fails or fails to be utilized adequately, it has a significant financial impact. Emam and Kuru also found that 26% to 34% of new technology projects were considered failures due to performance or cancellation (Emam and Koru 2008). This has the objective for practitioners to provide an additional tool and approach to help understand and reduce the likelihood of failure of these projects that do fail.

Innovation and technology acceptance is important for success and ROI.

This marketing company, like most others is under constant pressure to find new ways to improve productivity, reduce costs, or enable new revenue generating services. When the existing Event Management System was developed by the marketing company, there were few alternatives. Now there are 193 systems categorized as Event Management Systems (Capterra 2011). The company does not have a budget to increase the functionality to keep up with the competitors so their survival requires them to eventually look at other alternatives. This is consistent with the previous research on the importance of new innovations and technology acceptance to continue to generate a return on investment and be competitive in the marketplace. This need to find a more competitive way to manage events is consistent with previous research. First, new innovations, often in the form of new systems or software, have become more critical to almost every facet of modern day life (Mann 2002). Second, innovation has been shown to be a key driver of corporate success, this is especially true for younger companies whose growth comes from finding new markets with innovative new products (Cardozo R, K et al. 1993). Lastly, the acceptance of new technologies, such as information systems, is becoming more critical in the competitive global environment (Lee, Kim et al. 2006). These two innovations created several issues for the organization that needed be able to successfully implement them to gain the potential benefits or return on investment. Within organizations older technologies are continually being replaced by new innovations to drive improved productivity or deliver new services, but they are only successful when the employees or users accept and effectively use the new technology (Lee, Kim et al. 2006).

5.6 Summary
SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 188 The purpose of this chapter was to provide a discussion of the research results. First, the chapter discussed the overall study findings, which was followed by a discussion on what the results means to organizations. The next two sections discussed how the results fit with the theories underlying them as well as past IS research. This discussion of the results and their relevance leads into the conclusions presented in chapter 6.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 189

CHAPTER 6 - CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Introduction
This chapter concludes the study by providing a short summary of the research, its contribution to knowledge and practice, its limitations, and suggestions for future research.

6.2 Summary of Research

This research longitudinally explored the early phases of two contingent new technology projects that eventually failed after pilot phases. This research was done through the lens of Social Network Analysis of the Influencing and Coping Social Networks and measuring the factors of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). This study extended our understanding of the organizational technology acceptance in the early phases of a contingent acceptance of a new technology, by understanding how the influencing or coping networks add additional explanatory power of the Behavioral Intention and system usage over the traditional UTAUT model. In addition to the direct impacts on Behavioral Intention and system usage, this study also looked at the informal influencing and coping network factors as antecedents of traditional technology acceptance factors of Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, and Facilitating Conditions from the traditional UTAUT model. A hierarchical regression analysis of this study showed that an actors Coping Centrality and the Performance Expectancy of that actors neighbors significantly impact their own Performance Expectancy. This further supported earlier work on the importance of network position and neighbors on technology acceptance. This more traditional research approach was then augmented by a longitudinal evaluation of the dynamics of the actors within the social networks before and after their respective pilots to understand if using a social network graphs of the influencing and coping networks with the UTUAT perception factors as a diagnosis tool could improve the likelihood of success of the projects for practitioners. The longitudinal evaluation of the actors within the social network graphs supported the traditional research approach findings, but more importantly gave significant additional insight into the dynamics of the macro and micro-level understanding of technology acceptance through understanding how actors coped with new technologies across organizational boundaries over time. The longitudinal evaluation also showed how the central influential actors changed over time which resulted in the breakdown of a high density networks centered on individuals who have positive performance expectancy into a disjoint and less dense networks centered on individuals with negative performance expectancy. These dramatic influencing and coping network changes during the early phases of these contingent technology acceptance efforts coincided with the eventual cancelation or de-scoping of the projects. This demonstrated that social network graphs have the potential to bring visibility to acceptance inhibitors and bridge the organizational and individual decisions, which has significant impacts for practitioners and suggestions for future research.

6.3 Contribution to Knowledge

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 190 This research contributed to information system research by expanding our understanding of organizational technology acceptance in five ways. These include expanding our understanding of influencing and coping networks, increasing explanatory power of the UTAUT model when including social network constructs, provided insight on the early stages of contingent acceptance initiatives that eventually failed or where significantly delayed, provided new data on acceptance of event management systems and enterprise project management systems, and through snowball surveys showed the bridging of hierarchies and organizations in technology acceptance.

Evaluating if there is increased explanatory power of the UTAUT model when including social network constructs
Explanatory power of technology acceptance necessitates both a micro and macro-level understanding of the decision making process to accept a technology. Rather than just taking the more common aggregate view of modeling technology acceptance as is common with the Bass Model or its descendants for diffusion of innovations as described in Meades 2006 meta-analysis (Meade and Islam 2006), this research focused on individual social network analysis to create more understanding of both the micro and macro-levels of technology acceptance from a single approach and model. Similar to the original MAPs research (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009), one objective of this research is to see if social network constructs could potentially add significant explanatory power of technology acceptance. This research showed that the influencing and coping social networks play a significant factor as an antecedent of Performance Expectancy and Effort Expectancy.

Expand the Understanding of Influencing and Coping Network on Technology Acceptance

Earlier research has shown that the behavioral intention or system-use was shown to increase with network centrality, so actors who are centrally located within organizational networks enjoy a broad array of benefits and opportunities (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). This research was able to validate that the coping network neighbors play a significant direct role in an actors behavioral intention, but the coping network measures played a much larger role as an antecedent of performance expectancy and effort expectancy.

Combine Social Network Analysis Perspective with UTAUT Perspective

Being part of a coping or influencing network has been shown to influence behavioral intention and system use (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009) and this research looked at these social network graphs overlaid with the key factors from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003) to see how the two could be leveraged together. The research showed that in these two failed projects the coping network became fragmented and sparse, and in the case of the Event Management System, the coping network information became controlled by actors with negative Performance Expectancy of the new technology. The social network also showed that the main organizational decision makers responsible for the organizational decision connections within the coping network were only to actors with a negative Performance Expectancy

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 191 in the post pilot, which likely influenced the organizational decision to dramatically reduce and delay the project.

Provide insight on the early stages of contingent acceptance initiatives that eventually failed or where significantly delayed
The two technology acceptance projects used in this research were in the early stages of a contingent acceptance where both the organizational decision which was overlapped with a user pilot where employees were in the process of accepting the technology. The Enterprise Project Management project was cancelled soon after the pilot and the Event Management System met significant delays and reductions in scope, thus making it a failed project when it was no longer feasible to gain an ROI. The main focus of the research was on these employees, but since these are in the early stages of a contingent acceptance, it provided very unique data of both. This research showed some of the coping and influencing dynamics of the two failed projects which included the dramatic reduction and fragmentation of the coping and influencing network and the disconnecting of the technology vendors from the coping networks. As pointed out in earlier research, a social network view could help show how the help networks and resource controlling mechanisms are supporting or hindering the system use (Sykes 2009). Emam and Kuru also found that 26 to 34% of new technology projects were considered failures due to performance or cancellation (Emam and Koru 2008). This research contributed to the continued call for more research on failed technology acceptance initiatives (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002) due to their complexities. In this study, it did shed additional light on the failure of the technology initiatives.

Provide a new technology context researched in technology acceptance

In researching the literature for this study, there were many technologies that had been researched previously, especially when it comes to technologies that are used by larger user-bases, such as laptops or mobile phones. This research adds two more examples to the growing list of systems studied in technology acceptance that have little historical exposure in the technology acceptance research; specifically Event Management Systems and Enterprise Project Management Systems.

Use of snowball surveys to bridge hierarchies and organizations

As mentioned as future research is the idea of spanning hierarchies and boundaries for social network analysis within organizations (Sykes, Venkatesh et al. 2009). In this research, a snow-ball survey approach was taken where the connections were open-ended and additional surveys were sent to newly identified network actors to attempt to observe non-obvious hierarchy and boundary spanning. This is a different approach then using a fixed roster list of users and having the users identify which ones they interact which can be limiting because it might not identify all of the network connections that are not obvious to management or the researcher. This research showed that the coping and influencing networks for these two technologies spanned to technology vendors, clients, past colleagues, spouses, help-desks, and others.

6.4 Contribution to practice

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 192 The managerial implications of this research span four areas. First this research provides an example of how to use Social Network Analysis and Technology Acceptance factors within an organization. This study then leverages this insight from the graphs and results from using Social Network Analysis and Technology Acceptance factors to enable better planning, improve the likelihood of success, and allow manager to identify inhibitors to technology acceptance.

Provide an additional real-world example on using Social Network Analysis within an Organization to Support Technology Acceptance.
There is significant benefits that a company could gain by the use social network analysis and graphs to improve their innovativeness and ability to adopt new innovations. The additional insight in the decision process could ensure that the most central coping and influencing network individuals are involved in the acceptance and co-adoption of the technology. It is also important to ensure that the expertise from the technology vendors are well connected into the coping network further enable knowledge sharing and avoid frustration of employees. Social Network Analysis is still an emerging skillset and toolsets are highly limited to academic researchers, graduate students, and a small set of companies and government entities that are now focusing on the relationships between individuals, not just their attributes such as marketing and social media companies; these are generally not exposed to the larger technology industry and there is little commercial training in their use. Thus for a knowledgeable technology practitioner, there is little available to help provide the steps necessary to develop an actionable social network model to better support a technology acceptance initiative. This is clearly not training material, but tackling real-world problems with new approaches and exploring the challenges and opportunities in the results helps close the academia-practitioner gap for this domain.

Insight for Better Technology Acceptance Planning

The significance of this research is that it could provide a more deterministic planning for the technology acceptance within the different individuals and groups within a network. This could benefit marketers or change agents in creating their new technology change management, roll-out planning, or communication plans. Operationally, a combination of user perceptions and appropriate social network graphs could be used in the planning and testing of specific communication plans, training plans, and efficient deployment of change agents. The coping and influencing networks would provide valuable insight while assigning roles and choosing resources for a pilot. Communications and training plans could be more effectively targeted based on network and perception roles. For example an isolated resource would require more hands-on training then someone who already has a high usage and is very central in the coping network. Usage of technology acceptance perception values will also help with the planning; this general approach of using pre implementation surveys on factors such as perceived usability to better plan and predict usage is valuable and was shown to be a strong predictor six months later in related situations (Davis and Venkatesh 2004)

Improve Likelihood of Successful Technology Acceptance

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 193 Corporations invest significant amount into new innovations and technologies, their long-term survival requires them to get a return on this investment. This research suggests that we need to actively monitor and support our informal coping and influencing networks to improve the likelihood of a successful technology acceptance and make more informed decisions at the organizational adoption-level. This need was consistent with recent literature which has emphasized the financial costs of inaccurate innovation adoption modeling. First, misreading the adoption or acceptance of a new innovation in the early stages is costly; over-optimism could yield wasted investments. Alternatively, a misread slow adoption or acceptance could yield managerial decision to discontinue a potentially successful product or innovation within a large organization. To better read the acceptance across a large organization, we must understand the tipping point, which in early stage adoption is an outcome of the social networks which are non-uniform (Dattee and Weil 2007). Second, the importance of diffusion of innovations or technology acceptance into organizations is growing in popularity as the ability for a company to quickly implement new technology innovations is becoming more fundamental to their competitiveness (Tether and Tajar 2008 ).

Better Mechanism to Identify Change Inhibitors

Obstacles for the acceptance of the Event Management System could be identified better, such as knowing that there is little access within the organization to the vendor expertise. This micro-view of the social networks would help identify this and other types of change inhibitors. It is also important to overlay the technology acceptance factors onto the social networks to further understand factors such as the Performance Expectancy or Behavioral Intention of the central figures in the coping and influencing networks. This need for identifying change inhibitors is also consistent with recent literature where there is frustration on the lack of explanatory feedback from innovation adoption or acceptance and the inhibitors to adoption from the aggregate models. This requires better disaggregate models which can account for the non-smooth life cycle shapes that can result from lack of reference or opinion leaders or substitution innovations (Dattee and Weil 2007). There was also a demand for deeper insight into the inhibitors and stimulators of diffusion of innovations into organizations at both an aggregate and individual level to help suppliers market their products more effectively (Framback 2002).

6.5 Study Limitations

This study focused on a critical early phase for new technology acceptance and organization adoption. Within this research there are potential limitations that could include context, data gathering, variable selection, analytical, technology -features, theoretical and practical limitations. These limitations are important to understand and help in suggesting topics for future research.

Context limitations
There are three aspects of the context that were already discussed in section 5.2 that could make these results not directly applicable to other environments. These include the high pressure

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 194 environment, the high personal innovativeness of some individuals involved, and the complex nature of voluntariness in this contingent acceptance. In addition to these three limitations, this research also limited its focus to the early phases of a contingent technology acceptance of failed pilots. This could mean that the UTAUT factors might not be applicable to situations where the organizational decision has been firmly decided or later phases of technology acceptance after a pilot is complete and a larger organizational roll-out is in process.

Data gathering limitations

The snowball survey approach worked well for this research and was effective in getting a good understanding of the network boundaries of the influencing and coping network; so there were not significant limitations in getting a good sample for network analysis. Alternatively, there are limitations on the voluntariness measure. Rather than using self-reported survey questions, the voluntariness was based on observation, executive communications, and several project factors that could yield autocorrelation. For example, if a client project team was expected to use the Event Management System as part of the pilot, it was assumed it was mandatory for those individuals involved if they were in a supporting role for the client. Also, this research uses self-reported usage for the Event Management System which could be improved upon with actual usage data from log files. For the Enterprise Project Management System, the actual usage was assigned based on researcher observation of their involvement of hands-on working sessions in a pilot that used the Enterprise Project Management system.

Variables selection limitations

For this research, the UTAUT factors were chosen as a more recent and validated version of the earlier TAM models. This choice is appropriate for the individual acceptance, but it could have limitations within the organizational adoption. To more appropriately understand the organizational adoption in combination with the network analysis, it could be beneficial to survey the key resources for the organizational decision with additional measures for organizational adoption or use a multilevel framework as is identify by Frambach and Schillewaert framework shown in Figure 3 Organizational Level Acceptance Factors from Frambach and Schillewaerts 2002 and Figure 4 Individual Acceptance Factors from Frambach and Schillewaert 2002 (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002).

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 195

Analytical limitations
Analytically the hierarchical regression used in this study focused on direct and mediating effects of variables. It is likely that higher adjusted R2 values for Behavioral Intention and System Usage and more significant relationships between factors could be realized if the analytics included the mediating effects of voluntariness, age, gender, or experience. Some of the social network measures could also be theoretically supported as moderating factors.

Technology and innovation feature constraints limitations

The technologies evaluated in this research were group technologies within organizations that required a critical mass of users for them to add value. This approach could yield different results if applied to consumer technologies or individual productivity tools that do not require multiple users to yield benefits to the single user.

Theoretical and practical limitations

Lastly, there is the practical limitation that this research primarily focused on new technologies or systems, which limits the potential of leveraging the Coping and Influencing Networks within an organization to just new technologies. There are many examples of change within organizations that would benefit from understanding the perceptions of the employees as well as how they use the Coping and Influencing networks within organizations. These could include wellness programs, mergers, new business process, or other innovations that are not technology specific. These context, data gathering, variable selection, analytics, technology, and practical limitations offer many areas for future research.

6.6 Future Research

There are several areas of possible future research that include those that address the limitations of the study, bring in new contexts, increasing the sets of actual data, and taking an action research approach to new technologies.

Future research that addresses limitations of the research

The limitations of this research described in section 6.5 surfaced many potential areas for future research. First, future research could include scenarios in later phases where the organizational decision has been decided and a larger organizational roll-out is in process which would expand the context. Data gathering could be improved by using self-reported voluntariness as well as systematic system usage. Variable selection could bring in multi-level frameworks to incorporate more appropriate variables for organizational adoption. The analytics could focus more attention on the moderating factors of UTAUT as well bring in network measures as moderating factors. Extending this type of research to consumer or individual productivity tools could validate its applicability to other technologies. Lastly, future research can also extend this type of research to non-technology changes and innovations to address the practical limitation of only focusing on new technologies.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 196

New project contexts such as successful projects or non-contingent TAM

Since this research was limited to the early phases of a contingent technology acceptance of failed pilots. Future research could address scenarios where the organizational decision has been firmly decided or later phases of technology acceptance after a pilot is complete and a larger organizational roll-out is in process. At later phases, it could be expected that there would be higher levels of Behavioral Intention and more stability in the central positions of the Coping and Influencing networks.

More Data Longitudinal Studies of the Coping and Influencing Network

Second, this study showed some of the fascinating dynamics of the changing structure and central actors in a contingent acceptance. Future researcher could benefit by taking a similar longitudinal approach to mapping out the Coping and Influencing Networks in parallel with gathering the UTAUT or TAM perceptions at more points in time for successful and unsuccessful new technologies. With more longitudinal sets of network data and UTAUT measures, the research community will have more scenarios to look for patterns and understanding of the true social acceptance of new technologies. In addition, the more we understand how individuals are impacted by their neighboring nodes, the closer we are to be able to create simulations of TAM across networks and time.

Action Research while leveraging the Social Network Modeling and measuring TAM perceptions
Third, studying a new technology acceptance projects while leveraging the influencing and coping network graphs and UTAUT/TAM perceptions as an observer is valuable, but participating as an action researcher where the researcher uses the insights to deliberately suggest changes to the project to improve its success would help understand the true utility of this type of insight to practitioners. A researcher could apply similar approaches in addition apply actions such as the seven outlined in Section 5.3 on how practitioners could use these findings directly to innovations or processes.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 197

References
Abrahamson, E. and L. Rosenkopf (1997). "Social Network Effects on the Extent fo Innovation Diffusion: A Computer Simulation." Organizational Science 8(3): 289-309. Adler, P. S. and S.-W. Kwon (2002). "SOCIAL CAPITAL: PROSPECTS FOR A NEW CONCEPT." Academy of Management Review 27(1): 17-40. Agarwal, R. and J. Prasad (1998). "The antecedents and consequences of user perceptions in information technology adoption." Decision Support Systems 22: 15-29. Anderson, J. C. and J. A. Narus (1999). Business market management. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall. Barnes, J. A., Ed. (1979). Network analysis, orienting notion, rigorous technique, or substantive field of study? Perspectives on Social Network Analysis. New York, Academic. Beaudry, A. and A. Pinsonneault (2001). IT-Induced Adaptation and Individual Performance: A Coping Acts Model. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Information Systems, New Orleans, LA,. Bhattacherjee, A. (1998). "Managerial influences on intra-organizational information technology use: a principal-agent model." Decision Sciences 29: 139-162. Borgatti, S. (2002). Netdraw: Graph Visualizaton Software. Boston, Harvard: Analytic Technologies: Program written by Steve Borgatti for visualizing both 1-mode and 2-mode social network data. Borgatti, S. P. and R. Cross (2003). "A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks." Management Science 49: 432-445. Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, et al. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA, Analytic Technologies. Borgatti, S. P., A. Mehra, et al. (2009). "Network Analysis in the Social Sciences." Science 323: 892. Brandes, U. (2009). Centrality Concepts and Examples. Polnet Summer School for the Analysis of Political and Managerial Networks, Venice Italy. Brandes, U., P. Kenis, et al. (2006). "Explanation Through Network Visualization." Methodology 2 (1): 16-23. Brass, D. J. (1984). "Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization." Administrative Science Quarterly 29: 518-539.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 198

Brass, D. J., J. Galaskiewicz, et al. (2004). "Taking Stock of Networks and Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective." Academy of Management Journal 47(6): 795-817. Burt, R. S. (1987). "Social Contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence." American Journal of Sociology 92(6): 1287-1355. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London England, Harvard University Press. Capterra. (2011). "http://www.capterra.com/event-managementsoftware#." Retrieved 1/21/2011, 2011, from http://www.capterra.com/event-management-software#. Cardozo R, M. K, et al. (1993). "Product market choices and growth of new businesses." Journal of Product Innovation Management 10: 331-340. Cheung, W., M. K. Chang, et al. (2000). "Prediction of Internet and World Wide Web usage at work: a test of an extended Triandis model." Decision Support Systems 30: 83-100. Coleman, J., E. Katz, et al. (1966). Medical innovation: A diffusion study. Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill Co. Coleman, J. S. (1988). "Social Capital in the creation of human capital." American Journal of Sociology 94(supplement): S95-S120. Cook, T. D. and D. T. Campbll (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago, Rand McNally College Publishing Company. Damanpour, F. (1987). "The adoption of technical, administrative, and ancillary innovations: Impact of organizational factors." Communication Research 13: 675-688. Danowski, J. A. and P. Edison-Swift (1985). "Crisis effects on intraorganizational computer-based communication." Communication Research 12: 251-270. Dattee, B. and H. B. Weil (2007). "Dynamics of social factors in technological substitutions." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74: 579-607. Davis, F. D. (1986). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Sloan School of Management, MIT. Ph.D. in Management: 291. Davis, F. D. and R. Bagozzi (1989). "User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models." Management Science 35: 982-1003. Davis, F. D. and V. Venkatesh (2004). "Toward Preprototype User Acceptance Testing of New Information Systems: Implications for

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 199

Software Project Management." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 51(1): 31-46. Delre, S. A., W. Jager, et al. (2007). "Targeting and timing promotional activities: An agent-based model for the takeoff of new products." Journal of Business Research. Devaraj, S. and R. Kohli (2003). "Performance Impacts of Information Technology: Is Actual Usage the Missing Link?,." Management Science 49(3): 273-289. Easingwood, C. and C. Beard (1989). "High technology launch strategies in the UK." Journal of Marketing Management 18: 125138. Emam, K. E. and A. G. Koru (2008). A Replicated Survey of IT Software Project Failures. IEEE Software, I EEE Comp u t e r So c i e t y. September/October 2008 84-90. Emmanouilides, C. and R. Davies (2007). "Modeling and estimation of social interation effects in new product diffusion." European Journal of Operational Research 177: 1253-1274. Erickson, B., Ed. (1988). Some problems of inference from chain data. Sociological Methodology. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Folkman, S. and R. S. Lazarus (1980). "An analysis of coping in a middle aged community sample." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 21: 219-239. Folkman, S. and R. S. Lazarus (1985). "If it changes is must be a process - a study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48: 150-170. Frambach, R. T., H. G. Barkema, et al. (1998). "Adoption of a service innovation in the business market: an empirical test of supply-side variables." Journal of Business Research 42(2): 161-174. Frambach, R. T. and N. Schillewaert (2002). "Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research." Journal of Business Research 55: 163-176. Freeman, L. (1977). "A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness." Sociometry 40(1): 35-41. Freeman, L. C. (1979). "Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Clarification." Social Networks 215-239. Freeman, L. C., A. K. Romney, et al. (1987). "Cognitive structure and informant accuracy." American Anthropologist 89: 310-325. Gabbay, S. M. and E. W. Zuckerman (1998). "Social capital and the opportunity in corporate R&D: The contingent effect of contact density on mobility expectations." Social Science research 27: 189-217.
SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 200

Gargiulo, M. and M. Bernassi (1999). The dark side of social capital. 1999. Gatignon, H. and T. Robertson (1989). "Technology diffusion: an empirical test of competitive effects." Journal of Marketing 53: 3559. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). "The Strength of Weak Ties." The American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360-1380. Granovetter, M. S. (1985). "Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness." American Journal of Sociology 91: 481-510. Guadagnoli, E. and W. F. Velicer (1988). "Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns." Psychological Bulletin 103: 265275. Hair, J., R. Anderson, et al. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Harary, F., Ed. (1965). Graph Theory and Group Structure". Readings in Mathematical Psychology. New York, Wiley. Hekkert, M., R. Suurs, et al. (2007). "Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysis technological change." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74: 413-432. Hill, S., F. Provost, et al. (2006). "Network-Based Marketing: Identifying Likely Adopters via Consumer Networks." Statistical Science 21(2): 256-276. Hossain, L. and A. d. Silva (2009). "Exploring user acceptance of technology using social networks." The Journal of High Technology Management Research 20(1): 1-18. Ibarra, H. (1993). "Network Centrality, Power, and Innovation Involvement: Determinants of Technical and Administrative Roles." The Academy of Management Journal 36(3): 471-501. Ibarra, H. and S. B. Andrews (1993). "Power, Social Influence, and Sense Making: Effects of Network Centrality and Proximity on Employee Perceptions." Administrative Science Quarterly 38(2): 277-303. IBM (2009). IBM SPSS Statistics Online Help, IBM. Igbaria, M. (1993). "User Acceptnace of Microcomputer Technology: An Empirical Test." International Journal of Management 21(1): 73-90. Janssen, M. A. and E. Ostrom (2006). "Empirically based agent based models." Ecology and Society 11(37). Jasperson, J., P. E. Carter, et al. (2005). "A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated with Information Technology Enabled Work Systems." MIS quarterly 29(3): 525-557.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 201

Jin, E. M., M. Girvan, et al. (2001). "The structure of growing social networks." Physical review E 64(4). Kanter, J. (2000). "Have We Forgotten the Fundamental IT Enabler: Ease of Use?" Information Systems Management 17(3): 70-77. Katz, M. and C. Shapiro (1994). "Systems competition and network effects." The Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 93-115. Kennedy, A. M. (1983). "The adoption and diffusion of new industrial products: a literature review." European Journal of Marketing 17(3): 31-88. Kilduff, M. and W. Tsai (2003). Social Networks and Organizations, SAGE Publications. Kim, C., J. Jahng, et al. (2007). "An empirical investigation into the utilization-based information technology success model: integrating taskperformance and social influence perspective." Journal of Information Technology: 152-160. Ko, E., S. H. Kim, et al. (2007). "Organizational characteristics and the CRM adoption process." Journal of Business Research 61: 65-74. Krackhardt, D. (1999). "The Ties that Torture: Simmelian Tie Analysis in Organizations." Research in the Sociology of Organizations 16: 183-210. Krackhardt, D. and R. Stern (1988). "Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation." Social Psychology Quarterly 51: 123-140. Kraut, R., R. Rice, et al. (1998). "Varieties of social influence: the role of utility and norms in the success of a new communication medium." Organizational Science 9: 437-453. Labay, D. and T. Kinnear (1981). "Exploring the consumer decision process in the adoption of solar energy systems." Journal of Consumer Research 8: 271-278. Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York, McGraw-Hill. Lazarus, R. S. and S. Folkman (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer Publishing Company. New York, Springer Publishing Company. Lee, J.-S., H. Cho, et al. (2003). "Technology Acceptance and Social Networking in Distance Learning." Education Technology and Society 6(2): 50-61. Lee, S., I. Kim, et al. (2006). "The role of exogenous factors in technology acceptance: The case of object oriented technology." Information and Management 43(4): 469-480. Lerner, J. (2009). Graphs and Matricies. Polnet Summer School on the Analysis of Political and Managerial Networks, Venice Italy, Tilburg Univerisity.
SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 202

Leskovec, J., L. Adamic, et al. (2007). "The Dynamics of Viral Marketing." ACM Transactions on the Web, 1(1). Limayem, M., S. G. Hirt, et al. (2007). "How Habit Limits the Predictive Power of Intention: The Case of Information Systems Continuance." MIS Quarterly 31(4): 705-737. MacCallum, R. C., M. W. Browne, et al. (1996). "Power Analysis and Determination of Sample Size for Covariance Structure Modeling." Psychological Methods 1(2): 130-149. Mann, C. C. (2002). Why software is so bad. Technology Review: 33-38. Mansfield, E. (1993). "The diffusion of flexible manufacturing systems in Japan, Europe and the United States." Management Science 39: 149-159. Markus, L. (1990). Towards a critical mass theory of interactive media: universal access, interdependence and diffusion. Organizations and communication technology. J. Fulk and C. Steinfeld. Newbury Park, CA, Sage. Marsden, P. V. (1990). "Network Data and Measurement." Annu. Rev. Sociol. 16: 435-463. Mathieson, K. (1991). "Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior." Information Systems Research 2(3): 173-191. Maxwell, S. E. (2004). "The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: Causes, consequences, and remedies." Psychological Methods 9: 147-163. McGuire, W. J. (1989). Theoretical Foundations of Campaigns. Public Communication Campaigns. R. E. Rice and C. K. Atkins. Newbury Park, California, Sage: 43-65. Meade, N. and T. Islam (2006). "Modeling and forecasting the diffusion of innovation - A 25-year review." International Journal of Forecasting 22: 519-545. Mehra, A., M. Kilduff, et al. (1998). "At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups." Academy of Management Journal 41: 441-452. Meyer, A. and J. Goes (1988). "Organizational assimilation of innovations: a multi-level contextual analysis." Academy of Management Journal 31: 897-923. Microsoft. (2010). "Microsoft Project 2010." Retrieved December 2, 2010, 2010, from http://www.microsoft.com/project/en/us/projectserver-2010.aspx. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewoods Clifs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 203

Montoya-Weiss, M. and R. Calantone (1994). "Determinants of new product performance: a review and meta-analysis." Journal of Product Innovation Management 5: 397-417. Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive?: A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC, US, Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co. . Morrison, P. (1996). "Testing a Framework for the Adoption of Technological Innovations by Organizations and the Role of Leading Edge Users." Mossholder, K. W., R. P. Settoon, et al. (2005). "A Relational Perspective on Turnover: Examining Structural, Attitudinal, and Behavioral Predictors." Academy of Management Journal 48(4): 607-618. Mumford, E. and D. Henshall (1979). A Participative Approach to Computer Systems Design. London, Associated Business Press. Narayan, D. and P. L. (1997). Cents and sociability: Household income and social captial in rural Tanzania. W. Bank. Washington DC. Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The Acquaintance Process. New York, Rinehart & Winston. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Phychometric Theory. New York, McGraw-Hill. Olshavsky, R. W. and R. A. Spreng (1996). "An exploratory stufy of the innovation evaluation process." Journal of Product Innovation Management 13: 512-529. Painter, J. Designing Multilevel Models Using SPSS 11.5 Mixed Model, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Papa, M. J., & Tracy, K (1988). "Communicative indices of employee performance with new technology." Communication Research, 15(5): 524-544. Patrakosol, B. and D. L. Olson (2007). "How interfirm collaboration benefits IT innovation." Information and Management 44: 53-62. Prochaska, J. O., C. C. DiClemente, et al. (1992). "In Search of How People Change: Applications to Addictive Behaviors." American Psychologist 47(9): 1102. Raab, J. r. (2009). Power Concepts or Who Is In Charge? Polnet Summer School on the Analysis of Polictal and Managerial Networks, Venice, Italy, Tilburg University. Ram, S. and H. Jung (1991). "Forced adoption of innovations in organizations: consequences and implications." Journal of Product Innovation Manage 8: 117-126. Rapoport, A. and W. Horvath (1961). "A Study of a Large Sociogram." Behavioral Science 6: 279-291. Robinson (1990). "Product Innovation and Start-up Business Market Share Performance." Management Science 36(10): 1279-1289.
SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 204

Roethlisberger, F. J. and W. J. Dickson (1939). "Management and the worker: An account of a research program conducted by the Western Electric company, Hawthorne works, Chicago." Oxford, England: Harvard Univ. Press. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Attributes of Innovations and Their Rate of Adoption. Diffusion of Innovations, Fifth Edition, Free Press - A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, Free Press. Ruef, M. (2002). "Strong ties, weak ties and islands: Structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation." Industrial and Corporate Change 11(3): 427-449. Ruud T. Framback, N. S. (2002). "Organizational innovation adoption . A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research." Journal of Business Research 55: 163-176. Salancik, G. R. and J. Pfeffer (1977). "Who gets power - and how they hold onto it: A strategic contingency model of power." Organizational Dynamics 5(3): 3-21. Salancik, G. R. and J. Pfeffer (1978). "A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design." Administrative Science Quarterly 23: 244-252. Schneider, V. (2009). Network Data - Collection and Representation. Polnet Summer School on the Analysis of Political and Managerial Networks, Venice Italy, Tilburg University. Shah, P. (2000). "Network destruction: The structural implications of downsizing." Academy of Management Journal 43: 101-112. Singer, J. D. (1998). "Using SAS PROC MIXED to Fit Multilevel Models, Hierarchical Models, and Individual Growth Models." Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 24(4): 323-355. Smithson, M. (2005). Statistics with Confidence. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications. Sparrowe, R. T., R. C. Linden, et al. (2001). "Social Networks and the Performance of Indivduals and Groups." Academy of Management Journal 44(2): 316-325. Stevens, R. E., W. E. Warren, et al. (1989). "Nonadopters of automatic teller machines." Akron business and economic review. Sun, H. and P. Zhang (2005). "The role of moderating factors in user techology acceptance." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64: 53-78. Sykes, T. A., V. Venkatesh, et al. (2009). "Model of Acceptance with Peer Support: A Social Network Perspective to Understand Employees System UseUSE." MIS quarterly 33(2): 371-393.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 205

Tabachnick, B. G. and L. S. Fidell (2001). Using Multivariate Statististics. New York, Harper Collins. Talukder, M. (2008). Organizational Innovation Adoption: The Determinants of the Adoption of Innovation by Individuals within an Organization. School of Management. Adelaide AU, University of South Australia. Doctor of Philosphy. Tether, B. and A. Tajar (2008 ). "The organizational-cooperation mode of innovation and its prominence amoungst European service firms." Reserach Policy 2008. Tharenou, P., R. Donohue, et al. (2007). Management Research Methods. Thompson, B. (1995). "Stepwise regression and stepwise discriminant analysis need not apply here: A guidelines editorial." Educational and Psychological Measurement 55: 525-534. Tsai, W. and S. Ghoshal (1998). "SOCIAL CAPITAL AND VALUE CREATION: THE ROLE OF INTRAFIRM NETWORKS." Academy of Management Journal 41: 464-478. Venkatesh, V., S. A. Brown, et al. (2008). "Predicting Different Conceptualization of System Use: The Competing Roles of Behavioral Intention, Facilitating Conditions, and Behavioral Expectation." MIS Quarterly 32: 483-502. Venkatesh, V. and F. D. Davis (2000). "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies." Management Science 46(2): 186-204. Venkatesh, V., M. G. Morris, et al. (2003). "User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View." MIS quarterly 24(1). Venkatraman, M. (1991). "The impact of innovativeness and innovation type on adoption." Journal of Retailing. Wasserman, S. and K. Faust (1994). Social Network Analysis Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press: 28-59. Wejnert, B. (2002). "Integrating Models of Diffusion of Innovations: A Conceptual Framework." Annu. Rev. Sociol. 28: 297-326. Wilkinson, L. and T. F. o. S. i. (TFSI) (1999). "Statistical Methods in Psychology Journals: Guidelines and Explanation." American Psychologist 54: 594-604. Wright, M., C. Upritchard, et al. (1997). "A Validation of the Bass New Product Diffusion Model in New Zealand." Marketing Bulletin 8: 1529. Zaltman, G., R. Duncan, et al. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York, Wiley.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 206

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 207

Appendices

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 208

Appendix A Survey Questionnaire

Acceptance of New Technology Survey Instructions
Answer questions as they relate to you. For most answers, select the one answer that is most applicable to you or fill in the blanks. Please provide the following First Name Last Name Check here if you would like a copy of the final report Your Age (Select only one.) 25 or less 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76 or more About the system 1. I would find the system useful in my job. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 2. Using the system enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 3. Using the system increases my productivity. (Select only one.) SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 209 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 4. If I use the system, I will increase my chances of getting a raise. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 5. My interaction with the system would be clear and understandable. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 6. It would be easy for me to become skillful at using the system. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 7. I would find the system easy to use. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 8. Learning to operate the system is easy for me. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 210 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 9. People who influence my behavior think that I should use the system. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 10. People who are important to me think that I should use the system. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 11. The senior management of this business has been helpful in the use of the system. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 12. In general, the organization has supported the use of the system. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 13. I have the resources necessary to use the system. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 211 14. I have the knowledge necessary to use the system. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 15. The system is not compatible with other systems I use. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 16. A specific person (or group) is available for assistance with system difficulties. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 17. I intend to use the system in the next 3 months. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 18. I predict I would use the system in the next 3 months. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 19. I plan to use the system in the next 3 months (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 212 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 20. My colleagues are frequently using the software for their job-related tasks. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 21. My coworkers are frequently using the software for their job-related tasks. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 22. My supervisor is frequently using the software for his or her job-related tasks. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 23. My subordinates are frequently using the software for their job-related tasks. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree 24. My companys executives are frequently using the software for their job -related tasks. (Select only one.) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = neutral (neither disagree nor agree) 5 = somewhat agree 6 = moderately agree SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 213 7 = strongly agree Organizational Network The following questions will ask about other persons whom you interact with in using <System X>. Names will be used to correlate your <System X> usage with theirs, but the names will be coded and removed in our data file in order to preserve the confidentiality and privacy of the participants. 25. List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that have access to information needed for effective use of <System X> (e.g., system features, upcoming releases, demo dates, etc.). 1. 2. 3. 26. List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you get help from for effective use of <System X>.<System X>. 1. 2. 3. 27. List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you give help to for effective use of <System X>. 1. 2. 3.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 214

28. List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that you believe have strong domain/functional knowledge for effective use of <System X> (e.g., such as tips and tricks, short-cuts, process sequence, etc.). 1. 2. 3. 29. List 1-3 people that you interact with or will interact with in a typical week that have access to resources for effective use of <System X> (e.g., training resources, manuals, tutorials, etc.). 1. 2. 3.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 215

Appendix B Information Sheet

Ben Leonard MBA, PhD Candidate International Graduate School of Business Division of Business, University of South Australia Benjamin.Leonard@postgrads.unisa.edu.au . 763-458-0140 Doug Vogel (PhD supervisor) Professor and Chair of Information Systems City University of Hong Kong isdoug@cityu.edu.hk May 8, 2009 [Recipient Name] [Street Address] [City, ST ZIP Code] Dear [Recipient Name]: As a <target company> colleague, I am extending this invitation and asking for your help with an important study that I am conducting as part of my PhD research to understand the impacts of individual networks on the acceptance of new technologies within organizations. The best way we have of learning about these issues is by asking individuals in organizations about their experiences and expectations of using certain new technologies and how those around them impact their decisions to accept a new technology. You have been selected for this research because you are a current or potential user of <new system being implemented>. The survey questions should only take about 10-15 minutes to complete and will be asked twice, now and in three months. Your responses are voluntary and will be kept confidential. The surveys do request names, but these are immediately coded to a unique number prior to analysis of the data and are only used to understand the cross-impacts of individual networks on the perceptions and expectations of technology acceptance within an organization. Only myself and my PhD supervisor, Professor Doug Vogel, will have access to individual responses, and no identifiable data collected will be released to <target company> or any other entity. The information collected as part of the study will be retained for five years in a combination of hardcopies and electronic format in a locked safe at my residence and another copy at the university.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 216

You can withdraw at any time and if you have any questions about this survey, please contact myself by telephone at 763-458-0140 or by email at Benjamin.Leonard@postgrads.unisa.edu.au . The study has been reviewed and approved by <target company>s Executive Leadership. The University of South Australias Human Research Ethics Committee has reviewed this study. Should you wish to discuss the project with someone not directly involved, in particular in relation to matters concerning policies, information about the conduct of the study, or your rights as a participant, please contact
Ms Vicki Allen, Executive Officer Human Research Ethics Committee University of South Australia GPO BOX 2471 Adelaide SA 5000 Email: Vicki.Allen@unisa.edu.au Tel: +61 8 8302 3118

By taking a few minutes to share your thoughts and opinions, you will be helping this research out a great deal. For participating you can also receive a copy of the final reports; there is a check box on the survey if you would like a copy. I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire and look forward to receiving your responses. Many thanks

Ben Leonard PhD Candidate

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 217

Appendix C Second Survey Correspondence

To: [Email] From: benjamin_leonard@yahoo.com Subje Second Survey for Ben's PhD Research ct: Body: [FirstName],
Three months ago, you completed an initial questionnaire on the XXXX Registration System for an important study that I am conducting as part of my PhD research. This is the second and final survey and your help is contributing knowledge to the fields of organizational social networks and their influence on new technologies. I understand that due to client demands and pilot timing you might not have used the system directly as part of your role right now, but your perceptions of the system are critical for the research to be completed. Attached is a link to the survey. Thank you in advance for your continued support. Here is a link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward this message. The survey questions should only take about 10-15 minutes to complete. Your responses are voluntary and will be kept confidential. You can withdraw at any time and if you have any questions about this survey, please contact myself by telephone at 612-454-8031 or by email at leobl001@mymail.unisa.edu.au. By taking a few minutes to share your thoughts and opinions, you will be helping this research out a great deal. I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire and look forward to receiving your responses. Thanks for your participation in this research and enabling me to complete my PhD research which has been in progress for 5 years! Ben Leonard MBA, PhD Candidate International Graduate School of Business Division of Business, University of South Australia leobl001@mymail.unisa.edu.au 612-454-8031 Doug Vogel (PhD supervisor) Professor and Chair of Information Systems City University of Hong Kong isdoug@cityu.edu.hk Please note: This is the final survey, but if you do not wish to receive any further communications on this research, please click here. http://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 218 To: [Email] From: benjamin_leonard@yahoo.com Subject: Follow Up Research Survey on MS Project Server at <target company> Body: [FirstName] I hope this email finds you well. Eight months ago, you completed an initial questionnaire for an important study that I am conducting as part of my PhD research to understand the impacts of individual networks on the acceptance of new technologies within organizations. I am now focused full time on completing my data analysis and dissertation writing for my doctorate by this spring. Below is a link to the follow-up questionnaire that I need your help completing to gain insight into the expectations and opinions of the users of MS Project Server after eight months. Although we didn't implement MS Project Server for <target company>, you current perceptions of MS Project Server are very relevent to my research. Thank you in advance for your continued support. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx The survey questions should only take about 10-15 minutes to complete. Your responses are voluntary and will be kept confidential. You can withdraw at any time and if you have any questions about this survey, please contact myself by telephone at 612-454-8031 or by email at leobl001@mymail.unisa.edu.au By taking a few minutes to share your thoughts and opinions, you will be helping this research out a great deal. For participating you will also receive a copy of the final reports. I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire and look forward to receiving your responses. Many thanks Ben Leonard MBA, PhD Candidate International Graduate School of Business Division of Business, University of South Australia leobl001@mymail.unisa.edu.au . 612-454-8031 Doug Vogel (PhD supervisor) Professor and Chair of Information Systems City University of Hong Kong isdoug@cityu.edu.hk http://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 219

Appendix D Consent Form

PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM Research Project: Understanding the impacts of personal networks on the acceptance of new technologies within organizations. Researcher: Benjamin Leonard, PhD Candidate Research Supervisor: Professor Doug Vogel I have read the Participant Information Sheet and the nature and purpose of the research project has been explained to me. I understand and agree to take part. I understand the purpose of the research project and my involvement in it. I understand that I may withdraw from the research project at any stage and that this will not affect my status now or in the future. I understand that while information gained during the study may be published, I will not be identified and my personal results will remain confidential.

Name of participant....... Signed.Date. I have provided information about the research to the research participant and believe that he/she understands what is involved. Researchers signature and date...

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 220

Appendix E Ethics Approval

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Vicki Allen <Vicki.Allen@unisa.edu.au wrote: Dear Benjamin Re: Ethics protocol P244/09GSB "Technology Acceptance within Organizations: Improving understanding using agent-based modeling with rich data" Thank you for providing the amendments and/or additional information requested by the Chairperson of the University's Human Research Ethics Committee (email dated 4 September 2009). I am pleased to advise that your protocol has been granted ethics approval and meets the requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Please regard this email as formal notification of approval. Ethics approval is always made on the basis of a number of conditions detailed in the attachment; it is important that you are familiar with, and abide by, these conditions. It is also essential that you conduct all research according to UniSA guidelines, which can be found at http://www.unisa.edu.au/res/ethics/default.asp Clinical Trials The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research defines a clinical trial as a form of human research designed to find out the effects of an intervention. Health-related interventions can include drugs, surgical procedures, devices, behavioural treatments, dietary interventions or process-of-care changes. If your project is a clinical trial you are required to register it in a publicly accessible trials registry prior to enrolment of the first participant (eg Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry http://www.anzctr.org.au/Survey/UserQuestion.aspx ) as a condition of ethics approval. Best wishes for your research. Regards, Vicki

Vicki Allen Ethics and Compliance Officer & Executive Officer, Uni SA Human Research Ethics Committee University of South Australia Research and Innovation Services Mawson Lakes Campus Mawson Lakes Boulevard Mawson Lakes SA 5095 Tel: +61 8 8302 3118 Fax: +61 8 8302 3921 Email: Vicki.Allen@unisa.edu.au CRIS Provider No. #00121B

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 221

Appendix F Statistical Syntax from SPSS to calculate results

* OPEN FILE GET FILE='/Users/benjamin_leonard/Documents/PhD/Research Data Files/PhD Research Data 16.sav'. DATASET NAME DataSet2 WINDOW=FRONT. {}... * PREPARE DATA * Recode Question 15 to reverse coding to parallel the scale with the other 3 Facilitating Conditions Questions RECODE PBC5_Q15 (1=7) (2=6) (3=5) (4=4) (5=3) (6=2) (7=1) INTO PBC5_Q15_Reverse_Coded. VARIABLE LABELS PBC5_Q15_Reverse_Coded '<the system> is not compatible with other systems I use. (reverse coded)'. EXECUTE.

* CHECK RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY FOR SIX MAIN CONSTRUCTS * RELIABILITY - Extent to which a measure is free of random measurement error (Smithson, 2005 - reference from management research methods). * Poor reliablity weakens the effect size and limits our ability to detect relationships between variables. * VALIDITY - Extent that a measure measures what its supposed to. * Internal consistency reliability - items are consistent with each other and typically measured by Cronbach's alpha coefficient (.90 highly reliablity, .70 fair reliablity - Nullally, 1978 - pg 153 Management research methods. * These 24 questions were coded as interval scales of measurement rather then ordinal. This is commonly done provided there are five or more response catagories and the underlying construct is * conceptualized as theoretically continuous (Tabachnick, B.g. & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistis (4th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=U6_Q1 RA1_Q2 RA5_Q3 OE7_Q4 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE. RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=EOU3_Q5 EOU5_Q6 EOU6_Q7 EU4_Q8 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE. RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=SN1_Q9 SN2_Q10 SF2_Q11 SF4_Q12 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE. RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=PBC2_Q13 PBC3_Q14 PBC5_Q15_Reverse_Coded FC3_Q16 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE.

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=BI1_Q17 BI2_Q18 BI3_Q19 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE. RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=ISI1_Q20 ISI2_Q21 ISI3_Q22 ISI4_Q23 ISI5_Q24 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 222

/MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE.

* REDUCE 24 QUESTIONS TO SIX MAIN CONSTRUCTS BY CALCULATING MEANS FOR EACH MAIN CONSTRUCTS

COMPUTE Performance_Expectancy_Mean=MEAN(U6_Q1,RA1_Q2,RA5_Q3,OE7_Q4). EXECUTE. COMPUTE Effort_Expectancy_Mean=MEAN(EOU3_Q5,EOU5_Q6,EOU6_Q7,EU4_Q8). EXECUTE. COMPUTE Social_Influence_Mean=MEAN(SN1_Q9,SN2_Q10,SF2_Q11,SF4_Q12). EXECUTE. COMPUTE Facilitating_Conditions_Mean=MEAN(PBC2_Q13,PBC3_Q14,PBC5_Q15_Reverse_Coded, FC3_Q16). EXECUTE. COMPUTE Behavioral_Intention_Mean=MEAN(BI2_Q18,BI3_Q19,BI1_Q17). EXECUTE. COMPUTE Implicit_Social_Influence_Mean=MEAN(ISI1_Q20,ISI2_Q21,ISI3_Q22,ISI4_Q23,ISI5_Q24). EXECUTE.

* Calculate Use Behaviors from comprehensiveness and freqeuncy survey questions COMPUTE Postpilot_Self_Reported_Use_Behavior=(Postpilot_use_frequency+ Postpilot_use_comprehensiveness-2)/12. EXECUTE. COMPUTE Prepilot_Self_Reported_Use_Behavior=(Prepilot_use_frequency+ Prepilot_use_comprehensiveness-2)/12. EXECUTE. * DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR RAW DATA DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=U6_Q1 RA1_Q2 RA5_Q3 OE7_Q4 EOU3_Q5 EOU5_Q6 EOU6_Q7 EU4_Q8 SN1_Q9 SN2_Q10 SF2_Q11 SF4_Q12 PBC2_Q13 PBC3_Q14 PBC5_Q15_Reverse_Coded FC3_Q16 BI1_Q17 BI2_Q18 BI3_Q19 ISI1_Q20 ISI2_Q21 ISI3_Q22 ISI4_Q23 ISI5_Q24 /STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV VARIANCE MIN MAX .

* CALCULATE DESCRIPTIVE STATS FOR OVERALL MEANS and check for normality of data * Use pairwise deletion for missing values, removes cases only when the missing data is needed for the calculation of a relationship * VALIDATE NORMALITY ASSUMPTION of univariate nomality using Kurtosis and skewness. * Reference: Wilkinson, L. & The Task Force on Statistical Inference (TFSI) (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanation. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604) * - Absolute value of Kurtosis should be less then 5 * - Absolute value of skewness should be less then 2 *

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Age Gender Voluntariness Performance_Expectancy_Mean Social_Influence_Mean Effort_Expectancy_Mean Facilitating_Conditions_Mean Behavioral_Intention_Mean Implicit_Social_Influence_Mean Use_Behavior Coping_Centrality Influence_Centrality Coping_Ego_PE Influencing_Ego_PE /STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX KURTOSIS SKEWNESS. * VALIDATE LINEARITY ASSUMPTION OF DATA * Manual inspection of data plot to vaidate that its generally linear and not obviously non-linear. * Violation of the linearity assumption weakens power of the statistical test to detect an effect, but does not invalidate the results.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 223

* Reference: Wilkinson, L. & The Task Force on Statistical Inference (TFSI) (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanation. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604) * VALIDATE HOMOSCEDASTICITY ASSUMPTION OF DATA * Variability of different scores are roughly the same at all values * Generate bivariate scatter plots of variable combinations * Check to see that scores do not disperse as they move up or down each scale * Pearson's correlation coeficient and mulitpl regression assume homoscedasticity of data because they compare means of independent groups. * Reference: Phyllis Tharenou, Ross Donohue, Brian Cooper, Management Research Methods, Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2007, page 202 * If homoscedasticity is significantly violated, you can adopt a more conservative alpha criterion (.025 for moderate heteroscedasticy and .01 for severe heteroscedasticity * in tests of statistical significance. * Reference: Wilkinson, L. & The Task Force on Statistical Inference (TFSI) (1999). * Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanation. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604) * Curve Estimation. TSET NEWVAR=NONE. CURVEFIT /VARIABLES=Behavioral_Intention_Mean WITH Performance_Expectancy_Mean /CONSTANT /MODEL=LINEAR /PLOT FIT. * Curve Estimation. TSET NEWVAR=NONE. CURVEFIT /VARIABLES=Behavioral_Intention_Mean WITH Effort_Expectancy_Mean /CONSTANT /MODEL=LINEAR /PLOT FIT. * Curve Estimation. TSET NEWVAR=NONE. CURVEFIT /VARIABLES=Behavioral_Intention_Mean WITH Social_Influence_Mean /CONSTANT /MODEL=LINEAR /PLOT FIT. * Curve Estimation. TSET NEWVAR=NONE. CURVEFIT /VARIABLES=Behavioral_Intention_Mean WITH Implicit_Social_Influence_Mean /CONSTANT /MODEL=LINEAR /PLOT FIT. * Curve Estimation. TSET NEWVAR=NONE. CURVEFIT /VARIABLES=Behavioral_Intention_Mean WITH Facilitating_Conditions_Mean /CONSTANT /MODEL=LINEAR /PLOT FIT.

* Curve Estimation. TSET NEWVAR=NONE. CURVEFIT /VARIABLES= Coping_Centrality WITH Use_Behavior /CONSTANT

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 224

/MODEL=LINEAR /PLOT FIT. * Curve Estimation. TSET NEWVAR=NONE. CURVEFIT /VARIABLES= Coping_Centrality WITH Effort_Expectancy_Mean /CONSTANT /MODEL=LINEAR /PLOT FIT. * Curve Estimation. TSET NEWVAR=NONE. CURVEFIT /VARIABLES= Influencing_Ego_PE WITH Performance_Expectancy_Mean /CONSTANT /MODEL=LINEAR /PLOT FIT. * Curve Estimation. TSET NEWVAR=NONE. CURVEFIT /VARIABLES= Coping_Ego_PE WITH Performance_Expectancy_Mean /CONSTANT /MODEL=LINEAR /PLOT FIT. * Curve Estimation. TSET NEWVAR=NONE. CURVEFIT /VARIABLES= Influencing_Ego_PE WITH Use_Behavior /CONSTANT /MODEL=LINEAR /PLOT FIT. * * * * * * * * VALIDATE ASSUMPTION OF ABSENCE OF MULTICOLLINEARITY Two or more independent variables are highly correlated Causes interpretational and/or computational problems in multiple regression Validated by checking bivariate correlations If two independent variables are correlated higher then .70, they may have collinearity Solution: the least theorectially defensible one should be dropped Reference: Wilkinson, L. & The Task Force on Statistical Inference (TFSI) (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanation. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604)

* CORRELATIONS: * CALCULATE THE RELATIONSHIP STRENGTH AND DIRECTION BETWEEN TWO CONTINOUS VARIABLES * Pearsons corrlation coefficient "r" * Researcher can square r to dermine shared variance * Rule of thumb: r=.10 small effect, .30 medium effect, .50 large effect size * Reference: Phyllis Tharenou, Ross Donohue, Brian Cooper, Management Research Methods, Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2007, page 209 CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES= Voluntariness Department Age Performance_Expectancy_Mean Effort_Expectancy_Mean Social_Influence_Mean Facilitating_Conditions_Mean Behavioral_Intention_Mean Implicit_Social_Influence_Mean Use_Behavior Influence_Centrality Coping_Centrality Coping_Ego_PE Influencing_Ego_PE /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING=pairwise. * CALCULATE REGRESSIONS TO MATCH STANDARD UTAUT MODEL REGRESSION

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 225

/MISSING pairwise /STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA CHANGE ZPP /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10) /NOORIGIN /DEPENDENT Behavioral_Intention_Mean /METHOD=ENTER Department /METHOD=ENTER Gender /METHOD=ENTER Technology /METHOD=ENTER Experience /METHOD=ENTER Age /METHOD=ENTER Voluntariness /METHOD=ENTER Performance_Expectancy_Mean /METHOD=ENTER Effort_Expectancy_Mean /METHOD=ENTER Social_Influence_Mean /METHOD=ENTER Influencing_Ego_PE /METHOD=ENTER Coping_Ego_PE /METHOD=ENTER Coping_Centrality /METHOD=ENTER Influence_Centrality.

REGRESSION /MISSING pairwise /STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA CHANGE ZPP /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10) /NOORIGIN /DEPENDENT Use_Behavior /METHOD=ENTER Department /METHOD=ENTER Gender /METHOD=ENTER Technology /METHOD=ENTER Experience /METHOD=ENTER Age /METHOD=ENTER Voluntariness /METHOD=ENTER Behavioral_Intention_Mean /METHOD=ENTER Facilitating_Conditions_Mean /METHOD=ENTER Coping_Ego_PE /METHOD=ENTER Influencing_Ego_PE /METHOD=ENTER Coping_Centrality /METHOD=ENTER Influence_Centrality. REGRESSION /MISSING pairwise /STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA CHANGE ZPP /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10) /NOORIGIN /DEPENDENT Performance_Expectancy_Mean /METHOD=ENTER Department /METHOD=ENTER Gender /METHOD=ENTER Technology /METHOD=ENTER Experience /METHOD=ENTER Age /METHOD=ENTER Voluntariness /METHOD=ENTER Coping_Ego_PE /METHOD=ENTER Influencing_Ego_PE /METHOD=ENTER Coping_Centrality /METHOD=ENTER Influence_Centrality. REGRESSION /MISSING pairwise /STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA CHANGE ZPP /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10) /NOORIGIN /DEPENDENT Effort_Expectancy_Mean /METHOD=ENTER Department

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 226

/METHOD=ENTER Gender /METHOD=ENTER Technology /METHOD=ENTER Experience /METHOD=ENTER Age /METHOD=ENTER Voluntariness /METHOD=ENTER Coping_Ego_PE /METHOD=ENTER Influencing_Ego_PE /METHOD=ENTER Coping_Centrality /METHOD=ENTER Influence_Centrality. REGRESSION /MISSING pairwise /STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA CHANGE ZPP /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10) /NOORIGIN /DEPENDENT Facilitating_Conditions_Mean /METHOD=ENTER Department /METHOD=ENTER Gender /METHOD=ENTER Technology /METHOD=ENTER Experience /METHOD=ENTER Age /METHOD=ENTER Voluntariness /METHOD=ENTER Coping_Ego_PE /METHOD=ENTER Influencing_Ego_PE /METHOD=ENTER Coping_Centrality /METHOD=ENTER Influence_Centrality. DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1. DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=PE EE /STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX KURTOSIS SKEWNESS. DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Performance_Expectancy_Mean Effort_Expectancy_Mean Social_Influence_Mean Facilitating_Conditions_Mean Behavioral_Intention_Mean Use_Behavior /STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX. USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(Experience = 0). VARIABLE LABELS filter_$ 'Experience = 0 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMATS filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE. USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(Experience = 1). VARIABLE LABELS filter_$ 'Experience = 1 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMATS filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXECUTE. COMPUTE Postpilot_Self_Reported_Use_Behavior=(Postpilot_use_frequency+ Postpilot_use_comprehensiveness-2)/12. EXECUTE.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects

Benjamin Leonard Page 227

Appendix G - Addressing procedures for ensuring sound ethical practices

There are two significant areas that had ethical challenges to ensure the details of every respondent and their responses are treated as strictly confidential: First, the researcher was an IT Director in the company where the research was conducted and part of his role as an IT Director is to leverage technology to further business objectives. This could have either biased or indirectly put pressure on respondents to adopt the particular technology. To minimize this risk, it was made clear in the information sheet and during any initial verbal overview of the research to the participants on the anonymity of the data back to the company. The researcher also kept a journal of his own intentions and experiences and was not either the business sponsor or the direct project manager of the technology acceptance initiatives that are part of this study. Second, to perform the social networking, the researcher needed to identify and model the network, both identifying who works together on formal teams and who they look to as opinion leaders from their questionnaire. To accomplish confidentiality while still maintaining anonymity, the researcher assigned a unique ID to each person to not disclose any names in the research.

SNA and UTAUT modeling of Contingent Projects