B2B Technology Adoption in Customer Driven Supply Chains

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply chains

Anthony K. Asare Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro Jun Kang
Article information:
To cite this document:
Anthony K. Asare Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro Jun Kang , (2016),"B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply
chains", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 1 - 12
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-02-2015-0022
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:27 27 February 2016 (PT)
Downloaded on: 27 February 2016, At: 04:27 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 83 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 154 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Carlos Ferro, Carmen Padin, Gran Svensson, Janice Payan, (2016),"Trust and commitment as mediators between economic
and non-economic satisfaction in manufacturer-supplier relationships", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31
Iss 1 pp. 13-23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2013-0154
Elten Briggs, Timothy D. Landry, Patricia J. Daugherty, (2016),"A framework of satisfaction for continually delivered
business services", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 112-122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JBIM-06-2014-0125
Jing Zhang, Yanxin Jiang, Rizwan Shabbir, Miao Zhu, (2016),"How brand orientation impacts B2B service brand equity?
An empirical study among Chinese firms", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 83-98 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-02-2014-0041
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:365403 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
B2B technology adoption in customer driven

supply chains
Anthony K. Asare
Department of Marketing, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, Connecticut, USA
Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro
Department of Marketing, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA, and
Jun Kang
Business School, Hunan University, Changsha, China

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this article is to develop and propose a comprehensive framework that identifies the factors that influence a companys
decision to adopt business to business (B2B) technologies.
Design/methodology/approach The authors review the literature regarding technology adoption from multiple disciplines including: Supply
Chain Management, Logistics, Sociology, Information Systems, Marketing and Economics. A synthesis of the review provides the foundation for
developing a comprehensive model of inter-firm technology adoption.
Findings The review and synthesis finds inconsistencies in the theoretical models and constructs used in previous studies of inter-firm technology
adoption. The comprehensive framework presented identifies four major categories of antecedents to technology adoption: characteristics of a
technology, organizational factors, external factors and relationships. The presented model focuses attention on the inclusion of relational factors
that affect the adoption of B2B technology.
Research limitations/implications An important area that has been ignored in the inter-firm adoption literature is the impact of inter-firm
relationships on technology adoption. This paper emphasizes the importance of inter-firm relationships and identifies power, trust and justice as
important relationships that influence the adoption of inter-firm technologies.
Originality/value The expanded framework identifies the antecedents of B2B technology adoption, which can be used as a guiding framework
by both academics and practitioners. The paper also offers directions for future work in the form of propositions.
Keywords Technology adoption, Business to business technology, Inter-firm technology
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
network, channel leaders are increasingly relying on new

information technologies (ITs), particularly collaborative
business to business (B2B) technologies (Grover, 1993; Lee
and Qualls, 2010; Zelbst et al., 2010). Examples of these
technologies include Radio Frequency Identification (RFID),
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), Point of Sale
technologies, Vendor Managed Inventory, Collaborative
Planning Forecasting and Replenishment and Internet-based
technologies. These collaborative B2B technologies are now
even more important than ever because while companies are
trying to rapidly respond to their customers needs, they are
also outsourcing their supply source globally, thus pushing
their supply source further away from their point of contact
with their customer (Roy and Sivakumar, 2007). Some
authors suggest that IT is the most important factor in supply
chain improvement (Patterson et al., 2003) and a company
such as Walmart has been extremely successful in no small
part due to its ability to use supply chain technologies to create
very sophisticated and efficient supply chains and logistics
networks that enable them to become responsive to consumer
demand (Fries et al., 2010).
Supply chains are being driven by the customer, and the goal
of supply chains is no longer to improve the material flows of
a small group of selected first tier suppliers but rather to satisfy
the ever-changing needs of the ultimate consumer (Svensson,
2002). Since 2001, The Campbell Soup Company has shifted
its supply chain emphasis from reducing costs to focusing
more on their business customers and end consumers (Clark,
2004). Procter & Gamble also won the Manufacturer of the
Year Award for replacing their traditional cost-cutting supply
chain focus with a Customer-Driven Supply Network that
enables them to focus more on satisfying the changing needs
of their customers (Sowinsky, 2004).
To respond to the ever-changing needs of the customer,
compete with other competitor-led supply networks, and
manage their complex global multilayered partnership
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm

31/1 (2016) 112
Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624]
[DOI 10.1108/JBIM-02-2015-0022]
Received 3 February 2015

Revised 3 February 2015
Accepted 3 February 2015
Anthony K. Asare, Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro and Jun Kang
Volume 31 Number 1 2016 112
Literature review
Although the value of B2B technologies has been widely

accepted in supply chains (Xie and Johnston, 2004),
companies are struggling to get their supply chain partners to
adopt these technologies, and large numbers of these complex
and expensive systems have failed. For example, while 95 per
cent of Fortune 1000 firms implemented EDI (a popular B2B
technology), only 2 per cent of the remaining US businesses
did so even though the largest firms had been aggressively
encouraging the adoption of EDI (Chwelos et al., 2001). Even
among those companies that have adopted B2B technologies,
very few of them are satisfied with the state of their inter-firm
systems, suggesting that substantial barriers exist regarding
the adoption and performance of their supply chain
technologies (Patterson et al., 2003).
While there is extensive literature on technology adoption,
relatively little of it focuses on supply chain or inter-firm
adoption (Xie and Johnston, 2004). The majority of
technology adoption studies focus on technology adoption by
individuals, leaving out an important part of technology
adoption, which is the adoption of technology by
organizations (Rogers, 2003). The existing inter-firm
technology adoption studies are inconsistent in their choice of
constructs, and as a result, the constructs used differ
considerably between studies. While each study has
contributed cumulatively and explores a portion of adoption,
none of the studies has developed a set of constructs that
comprehensively explains the phenomenon. Grover (1993)
identified the fact that the inter-firm adoption literature was
limited in its ability to focus on the macro level of adoption
and also to provide a core set of constructs. The problem still
remains today. One particularly important area that has been
inadequately covered or ignored in numerous inter-firm
technology adoption studies is the importance of inter-firm
relationships (Damanpour, 1991; Iacovou et al., 1995;
OCallaghan et al., 1992). Relationship variables like trust,
commitment and justice have been identified as very
important influences of inter-firm technology adoption
(Grossman, 2004; Hart and Saunders, 1997), yet most of the
inter-firm adoption studies do not adequately cover them.
Since the adoption of inter-firm technologies in supply chains
are usually initiated by a lead company who needs to convince
the other members to adopt a complex and expensive system,
inter-firm relationships are absolutely important in any effort
to adopt an inter-firm technology (Grossman, 2004).
The goal of this research is to develop and propose a
comprehensive framework to study the adoption of B2B
technologies by supply chain partners. The proposed
Technology Adoption in Supply Chains (TASC) model is
substantially different from the existing supply chain
adoption models and introduces constructs that are new to
the adoption of supply chain literature. The paper borrows
constructs from multiple fields including Supply Chain
Management, Logistics, Sociology, Information Systems,
Marketing and Economics. To better understand the
phenomena, the authors also extensively studied trade
publications and the popular press. The paper also offers
some directions for future work in the form of tentative
propositions.
Individual technology adoption models

A preponderance of the technology adoption models found in
the academic literature is used to explain technology adoption
by individuals and not by organizations. However, the existing
inter-firm technology adoption models usually borrow from
these individual-level models and incorporate them into
inter-firm adoption contexts. The two most commonly used
models to explain the adoption of technology by individuals
are the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Attributes
of Innovation Model.
Technology acceptance model
TAM is one of the most widely used models to explain
technology user acceptance behavior (Hernandez et al., 2010;
Ma and Liu, 2004) by individuals. The model was introduced
to help identify a small number of fundamental variables that
determine computer acceptance and usage (Davis et al.,
1989). TAM posits that perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use are primary determinants of an
individual users attitude toward using technology. Their
attitude toward the technology then influences their
behavioral intention to use the technology which in turn
determines whether they will actually use the system (Davis
et al., 1989; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Perceived ease of
use refers to the extent to which the user believes that the
system will be free of effort, and perceived usefulness is
defined as the users belief that using a system will increase his
or her job performance (Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh and
Davis, 2000).
According to the model, if individuals perceive a computer
system to be useful and easy to use, they are likely to have a
positive attitude toward the system. The more positive their
attitude toward a system, the more likely they will have a
behavioral intention to use it. Also, the higher the intention to
use the system, the more likely they are to actually use it. Since
its introduction, TAM has received considerable empirical
support but has been criticized for ignoring the impact of
social influences on an individuals decision to use technology.
In an effort to extend TAM to cover social influences and
other relevant predictors of technology acceptance, Venkatesh
and Davis (2000) proposed and empirically tested a new
model that included social factors. This new model, TAM2,
found support for the influence of three social factors:
subjective norms, image and voluntariness, in an individuals
decision to adopt or reject technology. They also found that
subjective norms have a direct effect on intention to use in
mandatory contexts but not in voluntary contexts. The
authors suggested that this explained why previous studies,
most of which were conducted in voluntary environments,
found a non-significant role for social factors. In another
study, Brown et al. (2002) also studied the impact of social
influences on TAM. They explored the appropriateness of
TAM in mandatory environments because they anticipated
that the underlying relationships of the traditional technology
adoption models would be different in mandatory
environments. They found that TAM did not adequately
explain technology adoption in mandatory environments.
They also discussed the potential consequences of mandating
technology usage and suggested that mandating technology
2
use in an organization could result in the employees having

low job satisfaction, low loyalty and negative feelings toward
their supervisors and organization. Mandating technology use
could also lead to increased sabotage, unfaithful appropriation
of technology, delay or obstruction to implementation and low
productivity. They recommend that in mandatory settings,
organizations should engender positive attitudes toward the
technology to avoid potentially disruptive attitudes and
behaviors.
Although TAM is a classic model widely used to explain
technology adoption, it has primarily been used to explain
individual user adoption of simple technologies in voluntary
situations. In intra- and inter-firm environments where
technology adoption is sometimes mandated and usually
involves complex technologies, other models and theories,
including the attributes of innovation model, have more
commonly been used to explain technology adoption in more
complex environments.
perception as to how voluntary the decision to adopt the

innovation is. Tornatzky and Klein (1982) conducted a
meta-analysis of innovation characteristics and found about
30 different characteristics. They identified ten characteristics
that had an effect on technology adoption including Rogers
five characteristics and an additional five characteristics; cost,
communicability, divisibility, profitability and social approval.
Despite these efforts to modify or improve the five attributes of
innovations, most researchers still focus mostly on Rogers
(1983) five original attributes since they have been well
researched and proven time and again to have a strong
correlation with the decision to adopt an innovation by an
individual.
Just as in the case of the TAM model, a major criticism of
the attributes of innovation literature is that it focuses too
much on innovations for individual adopters and not enough
on innovations by organizations or the larger social system.
Tornatzky and Klein (1982) suggest that future studies should
emphasize the adoption of innovations in organizations.
Attributes of an innovation
Researchers of both individual and organizational technology
adoption have extensively used the attributes of an innovation
model and have found that these attributes usually account for a
large amount of variance in organizational adoption of
innovations (Russell and Hoag, 2004). Borrowing from decades
of diffusion research, Rogers (1983) identified five main
attributes of innovation: relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, trialability and observability.
Relative Advantage is the degree to which an innovation is
perceived as being better than the existing idea that is being
replaced (OCallaghan et al., 1992). Past research almost
universally finds a positive relationship between relative
advantage and rate of adoption, and researchers find relative
advantage to be one of the strongest predictors of adoption
(Rogers, 2003). Complexity refers to the degree to which an
innovation is believed to be difficult to understand, use or
implement (Rogers, 2003). Complexity has been widely found
to have a negative influence on adoption and it is believed that
the more complex an innovation, the less likely for it to be
adopted (Sia et al., 2004). Compatibility refers to the degree to
which an innovation is perceived to be consistent with the
adopters internal culture, business processes, management
practices and communication protocols (OCallaghan et al.,
1992). Greater compatibility is usually more preferable
because it presents the adopter with less uncertainty and
allows the interpretation of the innovation in a more familiar
context (Sia et al., 2004). Trialability refers to the degree to
which an innovation can be experienced on a limited basis
before adoption (Rogers, 2003) and is believed to be positively
associated with adoption since it helps to reduce uncertainty in
the adoption process (Al-Gahatani, 2003). Observability
refers to the degree to which the results of an innovation can
be easily observed (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and is usually
positively related to its adoption.
Other researchers have modified Rogers perceived
attributes of innovation model. Prominent among them are
Moore and Benbasat (1991) who identified two further
constructs image and voluntariness. Image refers to the
ability for an innovation to enhance the adopters social status
in a social system, and voluntariness refers to the adopters
Inter-firm technology adoption

Although TAM and the attributes of innovation model explain
a large amount of the variance in individual technology
adoption, they explain a lot less in organizational and
inter-firm environments since decision making in these
environments is a lot more complex and also introduce a lot
more variables than in individual technology adoption
environments (Damanpour, 1991). Efforts have therefore
been made by inter-firm technology adoption researchers to
create new models that explain the more complex
organizational environment while still including some
elements from the individual adoption models.
OCallaghan et al. (1992), in their study of EDI in an
inter-firm environment, identify three main factors that influence
technology adoption: relative advantage, compatibility and
external influences. Relative advantage and compatibility were
borrowed from the attributes of innovation model. The construct
external influence is made up of three sub constructs: the
source firm, previous adopters and industry promotion. The
authors found a positive relationship between relative advantage
and the decision to adopt EDI. They however did not find a
significant relationship between external influences and EDI
adoption.
Another inter-firm adoption model was developed by
Grover (1993) to identify factors that facilitate the adoption of
customer-based interorganizational systems (CIOS). The
initial model identified organizational factors, support factors,
policy factors, environmental factors and interorganizational
systems (IOS) factors as the major determinants of an
organizations decision to adopt a CIOS. After empirically
testing the initial model, the author developed a new model
based on the constructs that he was able to find strong support
for. The new model identified internal push, competitive
need, market assessment, proactive technical orientation and
industry adoptions as the key factors that positively affect the
adoption of a CIOS. Grover (1993) also identified
information intensity, complexity and incompatibility as
impediments to the adoption of a CIOS.
Premkumar and Ramamurthy (1995) studied the role of
interorganizational and organizational factors on an
3
Proposed TASC framework
organizations decision to adopt IOS. They identified four

interorganizational factors that were based on a
socio-political framework borrowed from the marketing
literature. These factors were competitive pressure,
transaction climate, exercised power and dependence. They
also identified five organizational factors that were based on IS
research including top management support, internal need, IS
infrastructure, organizational compatibility and the presence
of an internal champion. Their study found support for two
organizational variables, top management and internal need,
and also two interorganizational variables, exercised power
and competitive pressure. Premkumar and Ramamurthy
(1995) also examined the difference between reactive and
proactive firms on three implementation outcomes. Proactive
firms were found to have more external connectivity with their
trading partners, greater extent of adaptation and better
integration of EDI information in their own internal systems.
Hart and Saunders (1997) are one of the few researchers
who focused their research primarily on the influence of
relationships on inter-firm technology adoption. They
developed a theoretical framework that addresses the role that
power and trust play in EDI adoption and usage. Their model
described the role of power in the persuasion of a trading
partner to adopt EDI. They also looked at the role of trust in
the usage of EDI after its adoption and the relationship
between trust and the type of power exercised. The variables
that they studied include supplier dependence, buyer
dependence, potential power, exercised power, continuity,
level of EDI use and trust. They also identified four
interrelated dimensions of trust: competence, openness,
caring and reliability. Using the case study of a single firm,
the authors illustrate how power and trust can be used to
influence inter-firm technology adoption. The paper also
offers some directions for future work in the form of tentative
propositions.
Russell and Hoag (2004) took a different approach. They
studied the social and organizational influences that affect
peoples acceptance of inter-firm technology designed for use in
an organization. Using case studies, they identified nine social
and organizational variables that influence the adoption of
inter-firm technologies. The variables are relative advantage,
compatibility, complexity, centralization, interconnectedness,
system openness, resource intensiveness, management level
support, breadth of support, formalism and internal champions.
After reviewing the literature on inter-firm technology
adoption, it can be seen that while each has contributed to our
cumulative knowledge and explained part of the adoption
process, no single study incorporates constructs that
comprehensively addresses the major constructs that influence
a companys decision to adopt inter-firm technologies
(Chwelos et al., 2001). The literature contains several
approaches and operationalizations and a number of
overlapping and divergent models have been used. Efforts
made to explain why organizations adopt inter-firm
technologies have therefore been inconsistent and inadequate.
In the following section, we develop a comprehensive model of
inter-firm adoption building upon the existing literature and
expanding to include relational and environmental variables.
The authors propose a framework that identifies the

antecedents of TASC. TASC identifies four key determinants
of the adoption of inter-firm technologies (Figure 1):
1 characteristics of technology;
2 organizational factors;
3 external factors; and
4 inter-firm relationships.
Characteristics of technology
The characteristics of the technology being adopted usually
account for a large amount of variance in inter-firm
technology adoption (Russell and Hoag, 2004). The TASC
Model borrows from the attributes of innovation literature and
identifies five key attributes of an innovation that influence its
adoption in a supply chain. They are Relative Advantage,
Complexity, Compatibility, Trialability and Observability.
The model also adds cost, which is a construct that is not
commonly used in the literature to explain inter-firm
adoption.
Relative advantage
Relative advantage has been widely used in the inter-firm
technology adoption literature, and researchers consistently
find the construct to be one of the strongest predictors of
technology adoption (Russell and Hoag, 2004). We define
relative advantage as the degree to which an innovation is
perceived as being better than the idea that it replaces
(OCallaghan et al., 1992), and the construct has been used in
the literature synonymously with perceived usefulness from
TAM and also perceived benefits (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Firms are more likely to adopt a technology if they believe it to
be better than the existing technology or methods used in the
firm to perform the same activity (Zablah et al., 2005). Since
Figure 1 Proposed TASC model
Characteristics of
Technology
Organizational
Characteristics
Size
Centralization
Management
Support
IT Readiness
Relative
Advantage
Complexity
Compatibility
Testability
Observability
Cost
Technology
Adoption
External
Environment
Environmental
Uncertainty
Competitive
Pressure
Industry
Support
Inter-firm
Relationships
Power
Justice
Trust
past research for the large part finds a positive relationship

between relative advantage and rate of adoption and
researchers find relative advantage to be one of the strongest
predictors of adoption (Rogers, 2003), we propose that:
P3a. Organizational compatibility is positively associated

with an organizations intention to adopt B2B
technologies.
P1.
P3b. Systems compatibility is positively associated with an

organizations intention to adopt B2B technologies.
The perceived relative advantage of the technology

being adopted is positively associated with the intention
to adopt B2B technologies.
Trialability
This refers to the degree to which an innovation can be
experienced on a limited basis before adoption (Rogers,
2003). Trials can help the adopter understand how to use the
innovation, thus making it less complex and easier to
understand when they later adopt it (Al-Gahatani, 2003).
They also enable the adopter to find and solve major problems
before rolling out the solution over a larger portion of the
company. Before fully adopting RFID, The Campbell Soup
Company conducted a pilot test in its Texas facility by tagging
over 1,000 cases and 90 pallets, while Unilever North America
conducted an RFID trial to gain operational insights into its
business case (Clark, 2004). Trialability is positively
associated with adoption (Al-Gahatani, 2003), and so we
propose that:
Complexity
The technology adoption literature identifies three different
dimensions of complexity: complexity to understand;
complexity to use; and complexity to implement. However,
inter-firm technology adoption researchers rarely use all
dimensions in their definition of complexity. For example, Sia
et al. (2004) focus on complexity to implement while Karahanna
et al. (1999) only emphasize complexity of use. Our definition of
complexity encompasses all three dimensions, and in line with
Rogers (2003) we define complexity as the degree to which an
innovation is difficult to implement, use and understand.
Highly complex technologies are usually seen as a barrier to
technology adoption (Lin and Ho, 2009) since they are usually
difficult to implement, can lead to costly and widespread
disruptions and in general discourage decision makers in an
organization from adopting and implementing a technology.
Complexity has been widely found to have a negative
influence on adoption (Sia et al., 2004), and so we propose
that:
P2.
P4.
Trialability of the technology being adopted is

positively associated with an organizations intention to
adopt B2B technologies.
Observability
This construct has been defined differently by different
authors. While some authors emphasize the demonstrability of
the results of the innovation (Al-Gahatani, 2003; Sonnenwald
et al., 2001), others define it in terms of the visibility of the
innovation itself (Moore and Benbasat, 1991). Although the
visibility of the technology itself is important in individual
technology adoption contexts, it is less important in inter-firm
environments since companies adopt technology because of
what it can do for them and not because of its visibility. What
is more important to the company is whether the results of the
technology being adopted can be easily demonstrated or
quantified. If the innovation can be directly tied to economic
indicators like increased sales, profitability or return on
investment, it is more likely to be adopted than if it is tied to
indicators that are more difficult to demonstrate. Since
observability is usually positively related to adoption, we
propose that:
The complexity of the technology being adopted is

negatively associated with the intention to adopt B2B
technologies.
Compatibility
In the individual adoption literature, the compatibility of a
technology is usually determined by how compatible the
technology is with elements of the individuals social system
(Rogers, 2003). Inter-firm technologies however present a
unique compatibility problem because not only does the
technology have to be compatible with the organization
(organizational compatibility), but it also has to be compatible
with the existing technology systems that it is going to
interface with (systems compatibility). Systems compatibility
is very important in technology adoption and refers to
compatibility between the technology and the organizations
existing software, hardware, back office computer systems and
other technology systems and resources (Lin and Ho, 2009).
Organizational compatibility, on the other hand, refers to
compatibility between the innovation and the adopters
internal culture, business processes and management practices
(OCallaghan et al., 1992). Too often, organizational
compatibility is ignored during a technology adoption process,
leading to disastrous consequences for the adoption process.
Following OCallaghan et al. (1992), we classify compatibility
into two separate categories, organizational and system
compatibilities, enabling us to cover both very important
dimensions of compatibility. Since compatibility is positively
related to technology adoption (Premkumar and
Ramamurthy, 1995; Sia et al., 2004), we propose that:
P5.
The observability of the results of the technology being

adopted is positively associated with an organizations
intention to adopt B2B technologies.
Cost of innovation
The cost of an innovation is one of the most important factors
that affect a firms decision to adopt B2B technologies, and the
cost of RFID, for example, is one of the major factors limiting
that technologys adoption (Frost and Sullivan, 2005; Growe,
2004). Two main types of costs are associated with the
adoption of an innovation: direct and indirect costs. Direct
costs refer to those costs associated with acquiring the
technology, while indirect costs are the costs associated with
using, implementing and maintaining the technology.
Although the cost of an innovation is an important
determinant of whether a technology should be adopted, the
construct is quite often ignored in the technology adoption
5
literature, and when it appears in the literature, it is usually

discussed under relative advantage. Tornatzky and Klein
(1982) suggest that cost should be considered separately from
relative advantage and in line with their recommendation we
consider cost as a separate construct. Since the cost of a
product is negatively associated with adoption (Wejnert,
2002), we propose that:
P6.
P8.
Organizational size
Size is one of the most commonly used measures of an
organizations innovativeness and has been both positively and
negatively associated with a firms decision to adopt a
technology. While large organizations usually have more
resources that they can use to adopt technologies, they are also
less flexible and unable to adapt quickly (Damanpour, 1996).
In spite of the different associations, the positive relationship
between size and organizational innovativeness holds across a
large number of investigations (Damanpour, 1996; Patterson
et al., 2003; Rogers, 2003). Since the positive relationship
between size and organizational adoption of technologies
holds across a large number of investigations, we propose that:
The cost of a product is negatively associated with an

Organizational factors
The TASC model identifies organizational factors as
important determinants of inter-firm technology adoption,
and the following are some of the organizational
characteristics that TASC identifies as important antecedents
of technology adoption.
P9.
Management support
This refers to the extent to which senior executives of an
organization support an innovation. Management support
does not refer to mere approval from top management but
requires active and enthusiastic support that can be
transmitted through the whole organization (Grover, 1993).
Support from management is even more important in the case
of inter-firm technology adoption since this type of adoption is
usually expensive, complicated and requires long-term vision
and interaction among trading partners (Premkumar and
Ramamurthy, 1995). Grover (1993) empirically tested the
effects of top management support and found a strong
relationship between management support and the decision to
adopt inter-firm technologies. Premkumar and Ramamurthy
(1995) also found empirical support for the effects of top
management support on inter-firm technology adoption.
Since top management support has been found to have a
positive effect on the adoption of technology by an
organization (Damanpour, 1991, we propose that:
P7.
The level of centralization of an organization is

negatively associated with an organizations intention to
Organizational size is positively associated with an

IT readiness
This construct is associated with the level of sophistication of
IT management (Iacovou et al., 1995). Companies that have
sophisticated IT environments adopt technologies easier than
those with less sophisticated IT environments since
sophisticated IT firms are more likely to have the necessary
expertise and resources in-house to adopt and implement the
technology (Iacovou et al., 1995; Mouzakitis and Askounis,
2010; Qu and Wang, 2011; Zhang and Dhaliwal, 2009).
Grover (1993) found that IS infrastructure and planning
strongly predicted a companys decision to adopt technology,
and Premkumar and Ramamurthy (1995) also found that the
level of IT sophistication of a company has a positive and
significant relationship with an organizations decision to
adopt a technology. Since IT readiness is positively associated
with technology adoption (Premkumar and Ramamurthy,
1995), we propose that:
P10. IT readiness is positively associated with an
Management support of a new technology is positively

associated with an organizations intention to adopt
B2B technologies.
External factors
External factors represent factors outside the organization that
can have a significant impact on the organizations
performance (Sia et al., 2004), and the innovation literature
consistently recognizes that environmental factors influence
technology adoption (Grover and Goslar, 1993). TASC
identifies competitive pressure, environmental uncertainty
and industry support as major external influences affecting
technology adoption.
Centralization
This refers to the extent to which decision-making authority is
limited in an organization (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Kirca
et al., 2005). Lower-level managers in different functional
areas are more likely to possess greater knowledge of the
technology, operational-level problems and the business
processes than the higher-level executives (Amami and
Brimberg, 2004). Organizations with decentralized structures
are expected to adopt more innovative and cutting-edge
technologies (Kamaruddin and Udin, 2009). In organizations
where lower-level managers are not empowered to make
important decisions, new ideas and innovations are less likely
to be encouraged. Centralization is usually negatively
associated with organizational innovativeness since the more
centralized the decision making in an organization is, the less
innovative it has been found to be (Rogers, 2003). We
therefore propose that:
Competitive pressure
Companies are under pressure to adopt technologies when
their competitors or trading partners have either adopted that
technology or have the capability and desire to adopt it.
Chwelos et al. (2001) found competitive pressure to be the
single most important factor contributing to the adoption of
EDI. According to Premkumar and Ramamurthy (1995),
once their competitors adopt a technology, companies tend to
rush to adopt that technology even if they do not necessarily
need it. In a highly competitive market, companies are
6
motivated to adopt innovative technologies to maintain their

customers and strategic flexibility (Huang et al., 2008)
Companies also adopt technologies that their trading partners
request them to for fear that if they are slow to respond to such
requests, they could lose some or all of their business to those
competitors that readily adopt the technology (Kamaruddin
and Udin, 2009). Technology adoption studies have
consistently found a positive relationship between competitive
pressure and adoption (Grover, 1993) so we propose that:
Venkatraman, 1995), and yet, surprisingly, most of the

research into TASC does not include the influence of
inter-firm relationships as predictors or influences of the
adoption decision (OCallaghan et al., 1992; Russell and
Hoag, 2004; Williams et al., 1998). Since the adoption of
technology in supply chains is usually initiated by a lead
company who needs to convince the other members to adopt
a complex and expensive system (OCallaghan et al., 1992),
inter-firm relationships are absolutely important in any effort
to adopt an inter-firm technology (Grossman, 2004). The
authors identify power, trust and justice as important
relationships that influence the adoption of inter-firm
technologies.
P11. Competitive pressure is positively associated with an

Environmental uncertainty
Uncertain environments make companies feel vulnerable and
more willing to adopt technologies that they believe could help
them perform better (Grover and Goslar, 1993). These
vulnerable companies continuously scan the environment,
looking for technologies that could help them perform better.
According to Patterson et al. (2003), during uncertain
environments, companies tend to adopt ITs that enable them
to collaborate more effectively with their trading partners.
Environmental uncertainty motivates companies to adopt
innovative ITs to collect more information for their decisions
(Cegielski et al., 2012). Sia et al. (2004) however unexpectedly
found a negative correlation between environmental
uncertainty and innovation which they attributed to the nature
of the innovation that they studied (distributed work
arrangements). The vast amount of the literature indicates a
positive relationship between environments with high
uncertainty and companys decision to adopt technologies
(Patterson et al., 2003; Williams, 1994). We therefore propose
that:
Power
Power is defined as the ability of a firm to exert influence on
another firm (Frazier, 1983). Since inter-firm technology
adoption usually involves one company trying to influence the
other to adopt the technology, the amount of power that the
initiating company has is an important factor in the decision to
adopt technology. Power in inter-firm relationships is usually
a function of the level of dependence of the parties involved
and also the way in which the power is exercised (Hart and
Saunders, 1997). Gaski and Nevin (1985) distinguish
between potential and exercised power because firms may
have potential power but yet may not necessarily exercise it.
Power could be exercised in different ways. A persuasive
approach could be used to convince the adopting firms of the
benefits of adopting technology, or a more coercive approach
could be used in which threats and punishments instead of
inducements are used (Hart and Saunders, 1997). While both
persuasive and coercive approaches can influence a firms
decision to adopt technology, the coercive approach could
result in long-term damage to the relationship. Although
coercive power could lead to long-term negative outcomes, in
the short term, coercive power like persuasive power could
influence trading partners to adopt technology. In general,
partner power has a positive relationship with the adoption of
technologies (Zhang and Dhaliwal, 2009), we therefore
propose that:
P12. Environmental uncertainty is positively associated with

an organizations intention to adopt B2B technologies.
Industry support
This refers to support from industry associations, availability
of industry-wide standards and other industry-wide initiatives
aimed at managing and promoting the new technology. When
industry associations support the adoption of a technology,
they tend to use multiple means to encourage the use of the
technology in their industry. They help in the creation and
development of standards, provide technology infrastructure
and set up workshops to train their members on how to use the
technology (Lin and Ho, 2009). They also use their numerous
communication resources like industry meetings, publications,
conferences, trade shows, etc. to educate their members on the
value of the technology (Chan and Chong, 2012). According to
Frost and Sullivan (2005), clearly defined industry standards
tend to minimize barriers to RFID adoption. Since industry
support is positively associated with technology adoption
(Grover, 1993), we propose that:
P14. The amount of power of the initiating trading partner is

positively associated with an organizations intention to
Trust
Trust is an essential part of doing business and has been
linked to successful outcomes within firm and inter-firm
environments (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Trust provides
predictability which creates a sense of security in the exchange
relationship (Andaleeb, 1996) and Morgan and Hunt (1994),
in their seminal study found that trust is positively related to
both cooperation and commitment. A lack of trust among
supply chain partners often results in inefficient and ineffective
performance, and it has been reported that the biggest
stumbling block to the success of strategic alliance formation
is the lack of trust (Kwon et al., 2004).
Trust can be conceptualized as existing when one party has
confidence in another partys integrity and reliability (Morgan
and Hunt, 1994) with most studies in marketing channels
defining trust as the extent to which a firm believes that its
P13. Industry support is positively associated with an

Inter-firm relationships
Inter-organizational relationships in supply chains and
distribution channels are an important and key area of
research (Ring and van de Ven, 1994; Zaheer and
7
exchange partner is credible and/or benevolent (Geyskens

et al., 1999). These definitions lay stress on two dimensions of
trust credibility and benevolence. Credibility includes two
dimensions: competence-based credibility and honesty-based
credibility. Competence-based credibility arises from the
trustors confidence in the trustees ability, knowledge and
skill related to a specific task (Cook and Wall, 1980; Mayer
et al., 1995) or influence within a specific domain (Sitkin and
Roth, 1993). The second component of credibility is
Honesty-based trust (or integrity), which is the belief that
ones exchange partner is reliable, stands by its word, fulfills
role obligations and is sincere (Anderson and Narus, 1990;
Dwyer et al., 1987).
Benevolence-based trust is the belief that the exchange
partner is genuinely interested in ones interests or welfare and
is motivated to seek joint gains. A benevolent partner
subordinates immediate self-interest for long-range group gain
(Anderson et al., 1987) and will not take unexpected actions
that will have a negative impact on the firm (Anderson and
Narus, 1990).
Trust is important in the adoption of collaborative B2B
technologies since the use of inter-firm technologies
introduces collaborations that entail more sharing and access
to important confidential information (Grossman, 2004),
leading to increased vulnerability and interdependence (Hart
and Saunders, 1997). Trust between partners is also necessary
for a company to ensure its partner will commit resource to the
technology adoption and not act opportunistically in this
adoption process (Huang et al., 2008). To manage these
vulnerabilities and uncertainties, it is important for trust to
exist between trading partners (Hart and Saunders, 1997).
Without trust, the trading partners will be reluctant to adopt
technology that will enable their trading partners to access
sensitive trade information. We therefore propose that:
For fear of the consequences of not adopting the technology,

the target companies may only partially adopt the technology or
even buy the technology at the request of their trading partner
but not implement it (Suzuki and Williams, 1998). Some
companies will use alternative and less-efficient methods in their
back-end systems while making their larger partners believe that
they are using the newly adopted innovation. Because the
companies might not be using the new technology, the trading
partner will in the long run, not get the efficiencies that they
thought they had planned for. Because companies are being
forced to adopt technologies that they do not find particularly
beneficial to them, issues of fairness and justice are important in
inter-firm technology adoption. Researchers have identified three
distinct dimensions to justice distributive, procedural and
interactional (Colquitt, 2001; Sindhav, 2001).
Distributive justice. This refers to the perceived justice of
resources received in social exchanges (Brashear et al., 2004).
The literature identifies three categories of distributive justice:
equity, equality and need. Equity is a very important part of
distributive justice since social behavior is affected profoundly by
the belief that the outcomes of what members in a group receive
in an exchange should be proportional to their contributions
(Adams, 1965). Equality, another important aspect of
distributive justice, implies that recipients should receive the
same amount regardless of their inputs (Beugre, 1998; Deutsch,
1975). When using the equality rule, distributive justice is said
to occur when every member of a given social group receives the
same outcomes. Need is the third dimension of distributive
justice. When using the need rule, the need or welfare of each
recipient determines the distribution of rewards (Beugre, 1998;
Deutsch, 1975). Deutsch (1975) notes that in cooperative
relations when the fostering of personal development and
personal welfare is the common goal, need is likely to be the
dominant principle of distributive justice. Justice is important to
organizations due to its utility as a heuristic in enabling agents to
evaluate whether a principals request is legitimate. In such a
case, agents can use the perceived justice of the principal as an
indicator of whether the request is legitimate or in the case of
distributive justice, that the past behavior of the partner will
provide some indication of future justice allocations. Based on
the discussions above, we propose that:
P15a. The level of credibility-based trust is positively associated

with the intention to adopt B2B technologies.
P15b. The level of competence-based trust is positively
associated with the intention to adopt B2B technologies.
P15c. The level of benevolence-based trust is positively
associated with the intention to adopt B2B technologies.
P16a. Firms who perceive the allocation of benefits from

adopting inter-firm technology will be distributed
equitably among the partners, are more likely to adopt
the technology.
Justice
Perceptions of justice are important to the maintenance and
quality of channel relationships (Gilliland and Manning,
2002; Kumar et al., 1995), and the perceptions of injustice or
unfairness by vulnerable channel partners may result in
hostility toward a partner initiating an activity that is perceived
to be unfair. In inter-firm technology adoption, the adoption
process is frequently initiated by a larger firm asking their
trading partners to adopt a technology that may be of limited
value to the firms being asked to adopt it (Iacovou et al.,
1995). When this happens, the target companies may consider
it unfair and resist the adoption of the technology (Suzuki and
Williams, 1998). To ensure that their trading partners adopt
the technology, the initiating companies frequently threaten
those who are reluctant to adopt the technology with
punishments like fines or termination of their contracts (Hart
and Saunders, 1997).
P16b. Firms who perceive the allocation of benefits from

adopting inter-firm technology will be equal among the
partners, are more likely to adopt the technology.
P16c. Firms who perceive that the allocation of benefits from
adopting inter-firm technology will fulfill their needs,
are more likely to adopt the technology.
Procedural justice. Partners to exchanges are often interested
in the issues of process particularly in situations where process
judgments are important determinants of attitudes and
behavior (Lind and Tyler, 1988). These considerations gave
birth to the research on procedural justice or the justice of the
procedures used to determine outcome distributions and
8
allocations. Thibaut and Walker (1975) observed that

disputants in legal procedures viewed the outcome as fair if
they believed that the procedures that had produced them
were fair. Applying procedural justice to an inter-firm
technology adoption context, we propose that:
By developing a comprehensive framework that identifies

the antecedents of successful TASC, this paper will help both
academics and practitioners learn more about the factors that
can lead to the success of technology adoption initiatives in
supply chains. This paper will also enable practitioners to
learn more about the things that they can do to improve the
success rates of their inter-firm technology adoption
initiatives, thus making them more competitive.
P17. Firms who consider requests to adopt inter-firm

technology to be equitable are more likely to adopt the
technology than those who think it is not.
Interactional justice. Beyond concerns with distributions and
formal procedures, agents and/or participants to exchanges
care about the interpersonal treatment received from a
principal or the interactional justice (Bies and Moag, 1986).
Interactional justice has two components interpersonal
justice and informational justice (Colquitt et al., 2001).
Interpersonal justice reflects the degree to which agents are
treated with politeness, dignity and respect by authority or
third parties in executing procedures or determining outcomes
(Greenberg and Bies, 1992). Informational justice focuses on
the explanations provided to people that convey information
about why procedures were used in a certain way or why
outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion (Greenberg and
Bies, 1992). Applying interactional justice to an inter-firm
technology adoption context, we propose that:
References
Adams, J.S. (1965), Inequity in social exchange, in
Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental and Social
Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Al-Gahatani, S.S. (2003), Computer technology adoption in
Saudi Arabia: correlates of perceived innovation attributes,
Information Technology for Development, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 57-69.
Amami, M. and Brimberg, J. (2004), Technology diffusion:
the role of web systems, environment, and organizational
factors, Information Systems: Critical Perspectives, AIM.
Andaleeb, S.S. (1996), An experimental investigation of
satisfaction and commitment in marketing channels: the
role of trust and dependence, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72
No. 1, pp. 77-93.
Anderson, E., Lodish, L.M. and Barton, A.W. (1987),
Resource allocation behavior in conventional channels,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 85-98.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), A model of distributor firm
and manufacturer firm working partnerships, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 42-59.
Beugre, C.D. (1998), Implementing business process
reengineering: the role of organizational justice, The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 347-360.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), Interactional justice:
communication criteria of fairness, Research on Negotiations
in Organizations, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 43-55.
Brashear, T.G., Brooks, M.C. and Boles, J.S. (2004),
Distributive and procedural justice in a sales force context:
scale development and validation, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 86-94.
Brown, S.A., Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M.M. and
Burkman, J.R. (2002), Do I really have to? User
acceptance of mandated technology, European Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 11, pp. 283-295.
Cegielski, C.G., Jones-Farmer, L.A., Wu, Y. and Hazen, B.T.
(2012), Adoption of cloud computing technologies in
supply chains: an organizational information processing
theory approach, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 184-211.
Chan, F.T.S. and Chong, A.Y.L. (2012), A SEM neural
network approach for understanding determinants of interorganizational system standard adoption and performances,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 621-630.
Chwelos, P., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A.S. (2001), Research
report: empirical test of an EDI adoption model,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 12 No. 36, pp. 304-321.
Clark, T. (2004), In the spotlight, RFID 2004: Business
Benefits and Compliance, available at: http://consumergoods.
P18a. Firms who perceive higher levels of interpersonal justice

in the requests to adopt inter-firm technology are more
likely to adopt the technology.
P18b. Firms who perceived higher levels of informational
justice in the requests to adopt inter-firm technology
will be more likely to adopt the technology.
Conclusion
The goal of this research is to study the reasons why the
adoption of inter-firm technologies in supply chains succeed
or fail, and also to propose a framework for practitioners and
academics, that identifies the antecedents for the successful
adoption of inter-firm technologies. After reviewing the
literature on inter-firm technology adoption, it can be seen
that while each one explains part of the adoption process, most
of the major studies leave out very important constructs that
have been found to have significant influences on companys
decisions to adopt technologies (Chwelos et al., 2001). The
studies are also inconsistent in their choice of constructs and
as a result are inadequate in their efforts to explain why
companies adopt inter-firm technologies (Grover, 1993).
To solve these problems, the authors propose a
comprehensive framework that identifies the antecedents of
successful inter-firm technology adoption. The proposed
framework is substantially different from the existing supply
chain adoption models and introduces constructs that are new
to the adoption of supply chain literature. An important area
that has been ignored in the inter-firm adoption literature and
has been covered by the TASC framework is the impact of
inter-firm relationships on technology adoption. TASC
emphasizes the importance of inter-firm relationships and
identifies power, trust and justice as important relationships
that influence the adoption of inter-firm technologies.
9
edgl.com/Media/PublicationsArticle/9d63e75d79748a8ea5
aa60ce0d1b40de.pdf (accessed 25 April 2014).
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), On the dimensionality of
organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H.
and Ng, K.Y. (2001), Justice at the millennium: a
meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice
research, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3,
pp. 425-445.
Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), New work attitude measures of
trust, organizational commitment and personal need
non-fulfillment, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53
No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Damanpour, F. (1991), Organizational innovation: a
meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 555-590.
Damanpour, F. (1996), Organizational complexity and
innovation: developing and testing multiple contingency
models, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 693-716.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), User
acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two
theoretical models, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8,
pp. 982-1004.
Deutsch, M. (1975), Equity, equality, and need: what
determines which value will be used as the basis for
distributive justice, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 137-149.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), Developing
buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51
No. 2, pp. 11-27.
Frazier, G.L. (1983), On the measurement of interfirm
power in channels of distribution, Journal of Marketing
Fries, J.L., Turri, A.M., Bello, D.C. and Smith, R.J. (2010),
Factors that influence the implementation of collaborative
RFiD programs, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 590-595.
Frost and Sullivan (2005), Analysis of RFID Adoption and
Workforce Issues in North America, Computer Technology
Industry Association, available at: www.comptia.org/
(accessed 5 December 2005).
Gaski, J.F. and Nevin, J.R. (1985), The differential effects of
exercised and unexercised power sources in a marketing
channel, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 130-142.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Kumar, N. (1999),
A meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing channel
relationships, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 223-238.
Gilliland, D.I. and Manning, K.C. (2002), When do firms
conform to regulatory control? The effect of control
processes on compliance and opportunism, Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 319-331.
Greenberg, J. and Bies, R.J. (1992), Establishing the role of
empirical studies of organizational justice in philosophical
inquiries into business ethics, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 11 Nos 5/6, pp. 433-444.
Grossman, M. (2004), The role of trust and collaboration in

the internet-enabled supply chain, Journal of American
Academy of Business, Vol. 5, pp. 391-396.
Grover, V. (1993), An empirically derived model for the
adoption of customer-based interorganizational systems,
Decision Sciences, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 603-640.
Grover, V. and Goslar, M.D. (1993), The initiation,
adoption, and implementation of telecommunications
technologies in US organizations, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 141-164.
Growe, C.R. (2004), RFID: more than just flashy technology,
RFID 2004: Business Benefits Beyond Compliance, available at:
www.consumergoods.com (accessed 3 March 2005).
Hart, P. and Saunders, C. (1997), Power and trust: critical
factors in the adoption and use of electronic data
interchange, Organization Science, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 23-42.
Hernandez, B., Jimenez, J. and Martin, M.J. (2010),
Business management software in high-tech firms: the case
of the IT services sector, Journal of Business & Industrial
Huang, Z., Janz, B.D. and Frolick, M.N. (2008), A
comprehensive examination of internet-EDI adoption,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 273-286.
Iacovou, C.L., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A.S. (1995),
Electronic data interchange and small organizations:
adoption and impact technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19,
pp. 465-485.
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), Market orientation:
antecedents and consequences, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 57, pp. 53-70.
Kamaruddin, N.K. and Udin, Z.M. (2009), Supply chain
technology adoption in Malaysian automotive suppliers,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 385-403.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W. and Chervany, N.L. (1999),
Information technology adoption across time: a
cross-sectional
comparison
of
pre-adoption
and
post-adoption beliefs, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, June,
pp. 183-213.
Kirca, A.H., Jayachandran, S. and Bearden, W.O. (2005),
Market orientation: a meta-analytic review and assessment
of its antecedents and impact on performance, Journal of
Kwon, I.K., Whan, G. and Suh, T. (2004), Factors affecting
the level of trust and commitment in supply relationships,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 4-14.
Lee, J.L. and Qualls, W.J. (2010), A dynamic process of
buyer-seller technology adoption, Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 220-228.
Lin, C. and Ho, Y. (2009), RFID technology adoption and
supply chain performance: an empirical study in Chinas
logistics industry, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 369-378.
Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of
Procedural Justice, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Ma, Q. and Liu, L. (2004), The technology acceptance
model: a meta-analysis of empirical findings, Journal of
10
Organizational and End User Computing, Vol. 16 No. 1,

pp. 59-72.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), An
integration model of organizational trust, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991), Development of an
instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an
information technology innovation, Information Systems
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitmenttrust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of
Mouzakitis, S. and Askounis, D. (2010), A knowledge-based
framework for measuring organizational readiness for the
adoption of b2b integration systems, Information Systems
OCallaghan, R., Kaufmann, P.J. and Konsynski, B.R.
(1992), Adoption correlates and share effects of electronic
data interchange systems in marketing channels, Journal of
Patterson, K.A., Grimm, C.A. and Corsi, T.M. (2003),
Adopting
new
technologies
for
supply
chain
management, Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 39
No. 2, pp. 95-121.
Premkumar, G. and Ramamurthy, K. (1995), The role of
interorganizational and organizational factors on the
decision mode for adoption of interorganizational systems,
Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 303-336.
Qu, W.G. and Wang, Z. (2011), Impact of experience on
open inter-organizational systems adoption, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 111 No. 3, pp. 432-447.
Ring, P.S. and van de Ven, A.H. (1994), Developmental
processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships,
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 90-118.
Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations 3rd ed., The
Free Press, New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., Free
Press, New York, NY.
Roy, S. and Sivakumar, K. (2007), The role of information
technology adoption in the globalization of business buying
behavior: a conceptual model and research propositions,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 220-227.
Russell, D.M. and Hoag, A.M. (2004), People and
information technology in the supply chain: social and
organizational influences on adoption, International Journal
of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 102-122.
Sia, C.L., Teo, H.H., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K.K. (2004),
Effects of environmental uncertainty on organizational
intention to adopt distributed work arrangements, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 51 No. 3,
pp. 253-267.
Sindhav, B. (2001), The role of organizational justice in
managing change within marketing channels, Journal of
Marketing Channels, Vol. 9 Nos 1/2, pp. 65-78.
Sitkin, S.B. and Roth, N.L. (1993), Explaining the limited
effectiveness of legalistic remedies for trust/distrust,
Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 367-393.
Sonnenwald, D.H., Maglaughlin, K.H. and Whitton, M.C.

(2001), Using innovation diffusion theory to guide
collaboration technology evaluation, IEEE 10th
International Workshop on Enabling Technologies:
Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, Cambridge,
MA, 20-22 June, pp. 114-119.
Sowinsky, L.L. (2004), World trade manufacturer of the year
in global logistics, World Trade Magazine, available at:
www.worldtrademag.com (accessed 5 December 2005).
Suzuki, Y. and Williams, L.R. (1998), Analysis of EDI
resistance behavior, Transportation Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 36-44.
Svensson, G. (2002), The theoretical foundation of supply
chain management: a functionalist theory of marketing,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A
Psychological Analysis, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K.J. (1982), Innovation
characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 28-42.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), A theoretical
extension of the technology acceptance model: four
longitudinal field studies, Management Science, Vol. 46
No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D.
(2003), User acceptance of information technology:
toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 425-478.
Wejnert, B. (2002), Integrating models of diffusion of
innovations: a conceptual framework, Annual Reviews of
Sociology, Vol. 28, pp. 297-326.
Williams, L.R. (1994), Understanding distribution channels:
an interorganizational study of EDI adoption, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 173-203.
Xie, T.F. and Johnston, W.J. (2004), Strategic alliances:
incorporating the impact of e-business technological
innovations, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 208-223.
Zablah, A.R., Johnson, W.J. and Bellenger, D.N. (2005),
Transforming partner relationships through technological
innovation, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 355-363.
Zaheer, A. and Venkatraman, N. (1995), Relational
governance as an interorganizational strategy: an empirical
test of the role of trust in economic exchange, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 373-392.
Zelbst, P.J., Green, K.W., Sower, V.E. and Baker, G. (2010),
RFID utilization and information sharing: the impact on
supply chain performance Journal of Business & Industrial
Further reading
Asare, A.K., Brashear, T.G., Granot, E. and Kashyap, V.
(2011), The role of channel orientation in B2B technology
adoption, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 193-201.
11
Giannakis, M. (2004), Toward the development of a supply

chain management paradigm: a conceptual framework,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 27-37.
Holmes, T.L. and Srivastava, R. (1999), Effects of
relationalism and readiness on EDI collaboration and
outcomes, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 390-402.
Homburg, C., Fassnacht, M. and Guenther, C. (2003), The
role of soft factors in implementing a service-oriented
strategy in industrial marketing companies, Journal of
Business to Business Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 23-38.
Kemppainen, K. and Vepsalainen, A.P.J. (2003), Trends in
industrial supply chain and networks, International Journal
of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 33

No. 8, pp. 701-719.
Ring, P.S. and van de Ven, A.H. (1992), Structuring
cooperative relationships between organizations, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 483-498.
Zhang, C. and Dhaliwal, J. (2009), An investigation of
resource-based and institutional theoretic factors in
technology adoption for operations and supply chain
management, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 252-269.
Corresponding author
Jun Kang can be contacted at: junkang@hnu.edu.cn
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
12

B2B Technology Adoption in Customer Driven Supply Chains

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

B2B Technology Adoption in Customer Driven Supply Chains

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing