2017.06 Innovation OrganizationManagement

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/317781594
Implementing innovations within organizations: a systematic review and

research agenda
Article in Innovation: Organization & Management · June 2017

DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2017.1335943
CITATIONS READS
14 1,683
2 authors:
Jungsu Kim Goo Hyeok Chung

Kwangwoon University Dongguk University
4 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS 14 PUBLICATIONS 59 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Jungsu Kim on 14 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Innovation
Organization & Management
ISSN: 1447-9338 (Print) 2204-0226 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rimp20
Implementing innovations within organizations: a

systematic review and research agenda
Jung Su Kim & Goo Hyeok Chung
To cite this article: Jung Su Kim & Goo Hyeok Chung (2017): Implementing innovations within
organizations: a systematic review and research agenda, Innovation
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2017.1335943
Published online: 20 Jun 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rimp20
Download by: [Kwangwoon University] Date: 21 June 2017, At: 00:00

Innovation: Organization & Management, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2017.1335943
Implementing innovations within organizations: a systematic

review and research agenda
Jung Su Kim and Goo Hyeok Chung
College of Business Administration, Kwangwoon University, Seoul, Korea
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Contemporary organizations often adopt innovations as their Received 19 March 2016
top priority to survive severe global competition and the rapidly Accepted 23 May 2017
changing business environment. Although organizational gains KEYWORDS
from using an innovation (i.e. innovation success) appear to largely Innovation; implementation;
depend on the correct decision to adopt an effective innovation, innovation characteristics;
ultimately, innovation success cannot be obtained until individuals social factors; organizational
consistently use or implement the innovation (i.e. implementation factors; individual factors
success). Considering the importance of innovation implementation,
we scrutinize the factors influencing the implementation process and
outcomes for all innovation types (e.g., technological and process,
service and product, and administrative innovation). Specifically, we
conduct a systematic review of the existing studies on innovation
implementation and categorize the factors into four groups: innovation
characteristics, social factors, organizational factors, and individual
factors. Drawing on the findings obtained from our investigation and
our insights shaped during the systematic review process, we suggest
three future research agendas: (a) consider individual factors as the
primary predictors of an individual’s implementation behavior toward
innovation; (b) examine the possibility that innovations change during
their implementation and that multiple forms of implementation
outcomes can result; and (c) uncover the implementation mechanism
of organizations that continuously adopt and implement innovations
over a prolonged period.
1. Introduction
Innovation is generally defined as a new technology, service, or process that is aimed at
improving individual and organizational performance (Klein, Conn, & Sorra, 2001); thus,
contemporary organizations that struggle to survive in a rapidly changing business envi-
ronment set innovation as their top priority. As innovation is considered idea utilization,
the innovation process consists of two distinct stages: adoption, which refers to the organ-
ization’s decision to use an innovation, and implementation, which refers to the employees’
consistent use of the innovation after its adoption (Klein & Sorra, 1996). Although the
adoption of an effective innovation – one expected to generate the desired organizational
CONTACT Goo Hyeok Chung ghchung@kw.ac.kr

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. S. KIM AND G. H. CHUNG
change or performance increase – is essential for innovation success, innovation success

can be achieved only when the innovation is consistently used by individuals.
Despite its practical importance, the innovation literature has shed relatively less light on
implementation (Choi & Chang, 2009). As evidence, the total number of academic papers
published in the innovation literature with the keyword ‘implementation’ is considerably
smaller than the total number that includes all innovation-related subjects, such as ‘adoption’
or ‘creativity’ (89 vs. 263,457 articles over the last 21 years (1995–2015); see Figure 1). This
comparison of the number of academic publications on each subject not only indicates that
relatively less attention has been paid to implementation as a practical phenomenon but
also alludes to the possibility that existing studies have failed to sufficiently account for the
implementation factors that lead to innovation success.
Drawing on the fact that innovation is usually and ultimately completed by employees’ con-
sistent use, or implementation success, the present study focuses on individual-level innovation
implementation (idea utilization) – neither adoption nor creativity (idea generation) – as a target
phenomenon (Klein & Sorra, 1996). In particular, the present study, in line with recent studies
(e.g., Chung & Choi, inpress; Vila, Pérez, & Coll-Serrano, 2014) based on the typology of Adams
(2003) and Rogers (1995), covers all types of innovation implementation within organizations:
technological and process (e.g., adoption of information systems, process re-engineering), service
and product (e.g., deployment of new services, utilization of new products), and administrative
(e.g., provision of training programs, improvement of workplace environment) innovations.
These three types of innovation may be implemented in practice. Suppose, for example, that
an online retailer (e.g., www.amazon.com) implements three types of innovation: enterprise
resource planning (ERP), delivery service using drones, and high performance work systems
(HPWS). The ERP system is a process and technological innovation because it streamlines
work processes and facilitates real-time access by digitizing all business-related information.
Offering a new delivery service using drones would be a product and service innovation in that
this retailer applies new products (drones manufactured by other organizations) to its service
domain (delivery to customers). Finally, if this retailer adopts HPWS, including provisions of
new training programs and flexible job assignments (Sun, Aryee, & Law, 2007), the systems
will be viewed as administrative innovations for the improvement of employee satisfaction,
commitment, and performance.
In the current study, we argue that researchers need to take a more systematic and
balanced approach to individual-level innovation implementation. Through a systematic
Figure 1. Comparison between cumulative publications on innovation and those on implementation

by year.
INNOVATION: ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT 3
review (Okoli, 2015), we consider that the existing literature has largely adopted a somewhat
unbalanced view of implementation. That is, despite the fact that implementation success
depends on eliciting the strong commitment of organizational members at every level, from
top management to employees (Haour, 2004), a large body of research has focused on the
distal factors (e.g., management support) rather than the proximal factors (e.g., individual
motivation) influencing employee attitudes and implementation behaviors toward inno-
vation. The existing studies, which largely highlight the distal factors, have restricted our
theoretical lens to management-driven implementation and hampered our understanding
of the employee-executed implementation process. Thus, to better understand a higher level
of institutionalization (i.e. employees’ highly committed use or routinization; Klein et al.,
2001; Nord & Tucker, 1987) within an organization for a given innovation, scholars need
to better balance their view between the distal and proximal factors around the implemen-
tation process.
To this end, we raise a question: what are the areas of scarcity in research on innovation
implementation, and what are the drawbacks of the approaches taken in this literature over
the last two decades? Specifically, we present three innovation questions: (a) what factors
affecting the innovation implementation process and outcomes have received relatively less
attention, and how do researchers include them into a more balanced theoretical framework
to better understand innovation implementation; (b) what is a biased assumption in the
existing studies, and how can scholars challenge this assumption; and (c) what phenomenon
in the innovation implementation process has been overlooked by prior studies, and how
can researchers investigate it?
In the present study, we begin by reviewing existing studies on the innovation implemen-
tation process and outcomes. Then, by systematically categorizing the factors influencing
implementation, we suggest three future agendas that can help researchers deepen their
understanding of the implementation process and outcomes for innovation success.
2. A systematic review of innovation implementation

2.1. An analytic framework of the innovation implementation literature
Drawing on the motivation and the fit literature, we classify the factors influencing the
implementation process into four categories: organizational factors (e.g., implementation
policies and practices), innovation characteristics (e.g., perceived usefulness), social factors
(e.g., peer influence), and individual factors (e.g., personal innovativeness). Within the
motivation literature, an individual-level innovation implementation process can, on the
one hand, be considered the flow of the motivation process leading to an individual’s action
goal (Diefendorff & Chandler, 2011) because an individual’s attempt to implement an inno-
vation is similar to his/her willingness to direct his/her behavior toward a particular goal.
According to Diefendorff and Chandler’s seminal work (2011), an individual’s motivational
factors are divided into four categories along two-dimensional axes (i.e. distal-proximal and
personal-external influences: distal influences are long-term motivational patterns distant
from actual behavior, while proximal influences are immediate motivational factors close
to actual behavior (Kanfer, 1992); personal influences are within-person motivational fac-
tors, whereas external influences are within-organization situational or contextual factors).
Resorting to two-dimensional axes, we formulate our analytic framework of innovation
implementation based on their four categorizations of the antecedents affecting an indi-

vidual’s motivation process: distal external or organizational (e.g., compensation), proxi-
mal personal or innovation (e.g., instrumentality), proximal external or social (e.g., social
influence), and distal personal or individual factors (e.g., personality).
On the other hand, based on the existing attempts to extend the person–environment
(P–E) fit literature to organizational change (e.g., Caldwell, Herold, & Fedor, 2004; Chung,
Du, & Choi, 2014), the individual-level innovation implementation process is thought to
be affected by the degree to which an employee perceives compatibility between himself/
herself and some aspect of the direct and indirect work environment (i.e. P–E fit; Conger &
Kanungo, 1988, Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011; Weiner, 2009). For instance, if an employee
realizes that his/her values or abilities are similar to those supplied or demanded by an
innovation, he/she is likely to develop a high level of person–job or person–innovation
fit (Choi & Price, 2005) and to perform positive implementation behaviors toward the
innovation. In this light, by providing useful concepts, such as person–job/innovation,
person–group, and person–organization fit (Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006; Kristof, 1996),
the P–E fit literature helps us formulate an analytic framework. Therefore, drawing on the
motivation and the fit literature, we categorize the factors affecting the individual-level
innovation implementation process into four groups (innovation characteristics and social,
organizational, and individual factors).
Traditionally, the majority of management scholars (e.g., institutionalists) have focused
their attention on adoption. In the adoption stage, the most crucial causes influencing an
adoption decision are categorized into either intra-organizational factors characterized (or
provided) by managers or supra-organizational factors around the external environment
(Sung, Cho, & Choi, 2011). Top management (or sometimes senior managers), as institu-
tional elite(s) with a legitimate right to drive organizational decisions (cf. position power or
legitimate power; Northouse, 2007), initiate an innovation by spanning external boundaries
(Collins & Clark, 2003) or by promptly responding to institutional pressure (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1983; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Additionally, external environmental factors, such as
supplier marketing activity, external networks, and competitive pressure, influence adoption
decisions (Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002).
Recently, however, several researchers in organizational behavior (e.g., Bala & Venkatesh,
2015; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013; Trivisonno & Barling, 2016) have turned their focus to
implementation because innovation success results from consistent implementation, which
makes it possible to convert innovation into practice through members’ committed actions
(Petersilia, 1990). In this light, some innovation scholars (e.g., Klein & Sorra, 1996) have
emphasized implementation as a critical factor that connects the initiation or adoption of
innovation with its routinization in organizations (Klein & Knight, 2005).
Unlike in the adoption stage, in the implementation stage, the supra-organizational
factors around the external environment have little effect on the process, but intra-organiza-
tional factors, such as managers’ influence, continue even if in different forms. For instance,
top management or managers play a critical role in encouraging employees to implement
an innovation by providing implementation policies and practices (e.g., provision of tech-
nical assistance, rewards, and innovation-targeted training; Klein & Knight, 2005) and in
shaping a strong implementation climate, which refers to the employees’ shared percep-
tion that implementing the innovation is very important to achieving organizational goals
(Klein et al., 2001). As a result, top management’s or managers’ effects on the innovation
do not disappear and sometimes increase during the implementation stage.
Aside from the influence of top management and managers (later labeled organizational
factors), other types of factors may affect the implementation process and outcomes. In the
adoption stage, the primary agent for decision-making is usually top management, whereas
in the implementation stage, the principal agents for actual use are typically other organi-
zational members or employees. Accordingly, employee-related factors and employee per-
ceptions of innovation properties are crucial to the implementation process and outcomes.
Specifically, the individual’s perception of innovation characteristics, social dynamics, and
individual characteristics can determine his/her attitude and behavior toward a targeted
innovation. In the following sections, we conduct a systematic review of the existing studies
in the innovation implementation literature to classify the factors influencing the implemen-
tation process into four categories: innovation characteristics, social factors, organizational
factors, and individual factors.
2.2. Methodology
To achieve our research objectives, we performed a systematic review (Okoli, 2015) as a
standardized methodology. Drawn from the evidence-based approach utilized primarily
in medical science and recently in the information systems literature (Cook, Mulrow, &
Haynes, 1997; Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004; Okoli, 2015;
Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003), a systematic review is suitable for the present study
because of its two strengths: (a) it enables researchers to generalize factors influencing the
implementation process and outcomes, regardless of innovation type, by minimizing bias in
the process of searching, identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing literature; and
(b) it helps scholars to recognize their lack of attention to certain areas and to the disagree-
ments between them. In the current study, we adopted a simplified four-step procedure for
the systematic review (Okoli, 2015; Perkmann et al., 2013; Tranfield et al., 2003) as follows:
research planning, study selection, data extraction, and synthesizing and reporting findings.
In the first step, we established research planning by identifying the research purpose.
Considering that relatively less attention has been paid to implementation, despite its impor-
tance, we focused on innovation implementation within organizations as the target phenom-
enon. Then, we set the research objectives of this work as categorizing those antecedents
that affect the implementation process and outcomes and suggesting future agendas to fill
the research–practice gaps.
As the second step, we attempted to choose relevant studies on innovation implemen-
tation. We selected five academic databases (Academic Search Complete, Business Source
Complete, Computers & Applied Sciences Complete, PsycARTICLES, and SocINDEX) that
are widely recognized as the top databases in management, innovation, information sys-
tems, and behavioral science. For the titles, abstracts, and keywords, we used the following
statement with Boolean operators (i.e. ‘AND’ and ‘OR’): innovation AND implementation OR
innovative behavior OR use; these terms are the most widely examined in prior innovation
implementation studies conducted by management researchers, behavioral scientists, and
information systems scholars (e.g., Fidler & Johnson, 1984; Klein & Sorra, 1996; Slaughter,
1993). In particular, innovative behavior may be related to innovation in terms of idea uti-
lization (e.g., attitudinal acceptance of or active involvement in implementation; Bennis,
1965; Rogers & Adhikarya, 1979) as well as creativity in terms of idea generation; thus, we
carefully examined and excluded studies that referred to innovative behavior but addressed
creativity. In addition, we included ‘use’ because some scholars employ this term inter-
changeably with ‘implementation’ (cf. Bala & Venkatesh, 2015; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis,
& Davis, 2003), but we also confirmed that studies referring to ‘use’ address innovation
implementation as a target phenomenon.
Referring to the SSCI journal list in Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2015),
we ultimately considered 89 articles published in SSCI-listed journals only (e.g., MIS
Quarterly, Journal of Management Information Systems, Academy of Management Journal,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice) over 21 years
(1995–2015) as a sample. We limited the range of journals because publications in SSCI-
listed journals may be more influential in the innovation implementation literature than
those in non-SSCI journals. In Table 1, we list journal titles, types of innovations investi-
gated, methodologies adopted, and number of papers published.
As shown in Table 1, 10 journals had more than three articles on innovation implemen-
tation. These mostly belonged to the information systems and business/management fields
(e.g., MIS Quarterly, Decision Sciences, Journal of Management Information Systems, and
Journal of Organizational Behavior) and accounted for 54 papers (60.7% of the sample). In
contrast, 23 journals published only one article. The type of innovation most commonly
investigated was technological and process innovation (71.9%). The majority of studies
focused on this innovation type because it is the most salient tool developed by current
technological breakthroughs (e.g., IT). Approximately two-thirds of the studies (66.3%)
were conducted using quantitative methodology.
Table 1. Synthesis of articles on innovation implementation (1995–2015).

Classification Number of articles
Journal titles
MIS Quarterly 14
Decision Sciences 6
Journal of Management Information Systems 6
Technovation 6
Implement Science 5
Journal of Organizational Behavior 5
Academy of Management Journal 3
Human Resource Management 3
Journal of Business Research 3
Organization Science 3
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 2
Academy of Management Review 2
Behaviour & Information Technology 2
Human Resource Development Quarterly 2
Journal of Applied Psychology 2
Organizational Dynamics 2
Othersa 23
Innovation types
Technological & process innovation 64
Service & product innovation 3
Administrative innovation 11
Innovation in general (all types of innovation) 11
Methodological approaches
Quantitative method 59
Non-quantitative (e.g., qualitative, conceptual) method 30
Sum 89
‘Others’ indicates 23 journals that published only one article on implementation.
a
In the third and final step, we performed data extraction from the studies in the sample
and synthesized our findings to illustrate what factors influence the implementation process
and outcomes. These are summarized in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5, taking a qualitative approach.
In particular, drawing on grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), we employed open
coding to categorize factors (constructs) and axial coding to relate each construct to its
respective subcategory or category. For example, as shown in Table 2, when we searched the
two constructs visibility and task usefulness, we considered them to be similar constructs
with the core construct of perceived usefulness: while they are all related to an individual’s
perception that the innovation could help him/her increase his/her task performance, per-
ceived usefulness is more frequently used than the other two constructs in the literature.
Next, we classified these constructs into a subcategory labeled performance-oriented evalua-
tion with other relevant core constructs (e.g., relative advantages, result-demonstrability, and
outcome expectation-performance) because all of these constructs indicate an individual’s
expectation of benefits from using the innovation. In this way, once all core constructs and
subcategories were organized, we further categorized similar subcategories (e.g., perfor-
mance-, effort-, and congruency-oriented evaluation) into a relevant higher level category
named innovation characteristics.
Furthermore, while extracting data and synthesizing findings, we perused the sections of
every paper addressing theory, limitations, and future research directions so that we could
identify what factors are most commonly examined, what simplified assumption most prior
studies rely on, and what phenomenon is most-often targeted (or unrevealed). We elucidate
these in the final section – Future agendas for innovation implementation. In the following
section, we first classify and articulate the factors influencing the implementation process
and outcomes into four categories.
3. Findings: the four categories of factors most commonly examined in the
innovation implementation literature
3.1. Innovation characteristics
The first classification of factors affecting innovation implementation is associated with
an individual’s perception of innovation characteristics or properties (see Table 2 for fac-
tors classified into innovation characteristics). Although scholars have found that employ-
ees perceive different and varying attributes of innovation, the economic perspective or
rational decision-making of Status Quo Bias Theory (Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009; Samuelson
& Zeckhauser, 1988) offers a systemic approach to account for an individual’s implementa-
tion behavior. According to this perspective, the comparison of expected or calculated costs
against the benefits from using an innovation critically determines the degree to which indi-
viduals participate in or resist implementation (Keen, 1981; Markus, 1983). In other words,
employee behavior toward an innovation is predicted by the perceived benefit from using
the innovation and the perceived cost of switching to the innovation (Kim & Kankanhalli,
2009). For example, if an individual believes that he/she can gain considerable benefits (e.g.,
performance or productivity increases) from using an innovation, he/she will participate in
its implementation (i.e. performance-oriented evaluation or expectation). Similarly, if an
individual realizes that using a new innovation is relatively easier than using the existing
method or if an individual recognizes that the effort needed for a new innovation is less
costly (e.g., it is effortless or effort-free) than the effort for the existing method, he/she will
8
Table 2. Conceptual categorization: innovation characteristics.

Core constructs
Subcategories (Similar constructs) Definitions Main articles
Performance-ori- Perceived usefulness ‘The degree to which a person believed that using a Satzinger and Olfman (1995); Taylor and Todd (1995); Yoon, Guimaraes, and
ented evaluation particular system would enhance his/her perfor- O’Neal (1995); Arnold (1996);
mance’ (Davis, 1989) Agarwal and Prasad (1999); Hu, Chau, Sheng, and Tam (1999);
(visibility; task usefulness) Venkatesh (1999); Agarwal and Karahanna (2000); Venkatesh and Davis (2000);
Chau and Hu (2002); Venkatesh, Speier, and Morris (2002); Legris, Ingham, and
Collerette (2003); Venkatesh et al. (2003); Yi, Fiedler, and Park (2006); Kwon,
Choi, and Kim (2007); Malhotra, Galletta, and Kirsch (2008); Venkatesh and Bala
(2008); Kim and Kankanhalli (2009); Choi et al. (2011); Hong, Thong, Chasalow,
J. S. KIM AND G. H. CHUNG
and Dhillon (2011)

Visibility: ‘the extent to which potential adopters see Agarwal and Prasad (1997)
the innovation as being visible in the adoption
context’ (Agarwal & Prasad, 1997)
Task usefulness: ‘the extent to which the innovation Davis (1989); Yetton, Sharma, and Southon (1999)
contributes to improvement task performance’
(Davis, 1989)
Relative advantages ‘The degree to which a user considers an innovation to Agarwal and Prasad (1997); Korunka, Weiss, and Zauchner (1997); Watkins,
be better than the previously used method’ (Moore & Ellinger, and Valentine (1999); Venkatesh et al. (2003); Barlow, Bayer, and Curry
Benbasat, 1991) (2006); Kirsh, Lawrence, and Aron (2008); Venkatesh and Bala (2008); Bond-
arouk, Kees Looise, and Lempsink (2009)
Result-demonstrability ‘The tangibility of the results of using an innovation’ Agarwal and Prasad (1997); Karahanna, Straub, and Chervany (1999); Kumar,
(Moore & Benbasat, 1991) Maheshwari, and Kumar (2003); Venkatesh and Bala (2008)
Outcome expectation-perfor- ‘User expectations for performance-related con- Yetton et al. (1999); Venkatesh and Davis (2000); Repenning (2002); Venkatesh et
mance sequences, such as increased productivity and al. (2003); Wolfe, Wright, and Smart (2006); Saeed, Abdinnour, Lengnick-Hall,
enhanced quality of work output’ (Compeau & and Lengnick-Hall (2010)
Higgins, 1995)
Effort-oriented Perceived ease of use ‘The degree to which a person believes that using a Orlikowski, Yates, Okamura, and Fujimoto (1995); Taylor and Todd (1995)
evaluation system would be free of effort’ (Davis, 1989) Yoon et al. (1995); Goodhue and Thompson (1995); Arnold (1996); Agarwal and
Prasad (1997, 1999); Griffith (1999); Hu et al. (1999); Venkatesh (1999)
Venkatesh and Davis (2000); Agarwal and Karahanna (2000); Chau and Hu (2002);
Venkatesh et al. (2002); Legris et al. (2003)
Venkatesh et al. (2003); Barlow et al. (2006)
Carayannis and Turner (2006); Naveh, Meilich, and Marcus (2006); Yi et al. (2006);
Kwon et al. (2007)
Hsieh, Rai, and Keil (2008); Kirsh et al. (2008); Malhotra et al. (2008); Venkatesh
and Bala (2008); Choi et al. (2011); Hong et al. (2011)
Perceived behavioral control ‘The degree to which a system is perceived as relatively Taylor and Todd (1995); Morris and Venkatesh (2000); Chau and Hu (2002); Haus-
(trialability, complexity) difficult to understand and use’ man and Stock (2003); Venkatesh et al. (2003); Pavlou and Fygenson (2006);
(Ajzen, 1991) Hsieh et al. (2008)
Trialability: ‘the extent to which potential adopters per- Agarwal and Prasad (1997)
ceive that they have an opportunity to experiment
with the innovation prior to committing to its usage’
(Agarwal & Prasad, 1997)
Complexity: ‘the degree to which using a particular Karahanna et al. (1999); Aiman-Smith and Green (2002); Linton (2002); Choi and
system is free of effort’ (Karahanna et al., 1999) Moon (2013)
Congruency-orient- Compatibility (functionality ‘The degree to which an innovation is perceived as Goodhue and Thompson (1995); Klein and Sorra (1996); Agarwal and Prasad
ed evaluation risk, radicalness, technologi- being consistent with the existing values, needs, (1997); Griffith (1999); Karahanna et al. (1999); Chau and Hu (2002); Linton
cal self-efficacy) and past experience of potential adopters’ (Moore & (2002); Carayannis and Turner (2006); Yi et al. (2006); Liang, Saraf, Hu, and Xue
Benbasat, 1983) (2007); Durlak and DuPre (2008); Kirsh et al. (2008)
Functionality risk: ‘the risk that the systems will not Clemons et al. (1995)
meet the present or future needs of its users’ (Clem-
ons, Thatcher, & Row, 1995)
Radicalness: ‘the degree of newness or the difference Aiman-Smith and Green (2002); Green et al. (1995); Linton (2002)
from previous experience of an innovation to an
organization’ (Green, Gavin, & Aiman-Smith, 1995)
Technological (computer) self-efficacy: ‘individuals’ Choi et al. (2011); Compeau and Higgins (1995); Davis (1989); Davis et al. (1989);
beliefs about their abilities to competently use Stumpf et al. (1987)
computers’ (Compeau & Higgins, 1995)
INNOVATION: ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT
9
also participate in the implementation (i.e. effort-oriented evaluation or expectation). As

a result, an individual’s perceptions of innovation attributes are categorized into two eval-
uation domains: performance- or effort-oriented evaluations.
On the one hand, an individual may develop a performance-oriented evaluation regarding
a targeted innovation. A performance-oriented evaluation, as a subcategory of innovation
characteristics, is an appraisal or expectation of the degree to which the individual believes
that implementing the innovation will enable him/her to achieve higher performance. The
most representative concept in this subcategory is perceived usefulness, which refers to ‘the
degree to which a person believed that using a particular system would enhance his or her
job performance’ (Davis, 1989, p. 320). There are many similar notions: relative advantage,
which is defined as the degree to which an individual considers an innovation to be bet-
ter than the previously used method (Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 2003); result-de-
monstrability, which implies that when the advantage offered is greater, the innovation is
more likely to be used (Moore & Benbasat, 1991); and outcome expectations-performance,
which indicates an individual’s expectation for performance-related consequences, such as
increased productivity and enhanced quality of work output (Compeau & Higgins, 1995).
All factors within this perspective typically connect an individual’s attitude and behavior
toward an innovation with the extent to which he/she considers the innovation to be useful
to performance improvements.
On the other hand, an individual also develops effort-oriented evaluations regarding a
targeted innovation. An effort-oriented evaluation, being the other subcategory of innova-
tion characteristics, is defined as an appraisal or an expectation of the degree to which the
individual believes that implementing an innovation is either easy or potentially effort-free.
For example, Davis (1989, p. 320) suggested perceived ease of use, defined as ‘the degree to
which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort’. Likewise,
many scholars have presented similar concepts: perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991),
which refers to an individual’s perception of the ease or difficulty of conducting a specific
behavior, and complexity (Rogers, 2003; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971; Thompson, Higgins, &
Howell, 1991), defined as an individual’s perception of the relative difficulty of understand-
ing or implementing an innovation. Every factor within this subcategory indicates that the
individual’s attitude and behavior toward an innovation heavily rely on the extent to which
he/she considers the innovation to be easy to implement or at least not difficult to use.
In addition to performance- and effort-oriented evaluations, employees may perceive
other types of innovation characteristics that the economic or the rational decision-making
perspective cannot account for. In other words, an individual may assess innovation attrib-
utes based on either personal beliefs, needs, and existing values or on those of a reference
group (Rogers, 2003) rather than on performance- or effort-oriented expectations of his/her
own. While the factors pertaining to performance- and effort-oriented evaluations involve
mechanical or instrumental perceptions of an innovation, the factors captured in the third
subcategory connote individually or socially oriented, psychological perceptions stemming
from a comparison between the status quo and the innovation. We label this subcategory
congruency-oriented evaluation.
For example, an employee with a high level of compatibility, referring to the degree to
which he or she perceives an innovation as being consistent with existing beliefs and values
and with potential needs, is likely to have a positive attitude and behavior toward innovation
(Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 2003). Additionally, Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura,
1977) offers self-efficacy as a critical role in an individual’s use behavior by postulating that
‘the outcomes one expects derive largely from judgments as to how well one can execute
the requisite behavior’ (Bandura, 1978, p. 241). Subsequently, Compeau and Higgins (1995)
revealed that technological self-efficacy has a substantial effect on the emotional process in
that it predicts positive effects for innovation acceptance or use (Choi, Sung, Lee, & Cho,
2011; Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989) and reduces anxiety that impedes an
individual’s innovation use (Bandura, 1977; Stumpf, Brief, & Hartman, 1987).
3.2. Social factors

The second bundle of factors around innovation implementation is related to an individ-
ual’s perception of social relations (see Table 3 for the constructs categorized into social
factors). An employee, as the primary agent using innovations, does not stand alone within
an organization. Even in an extreme case in which a clear job description demands that an
employee work alone, he/she must sometimes communicate and cooperate with others,
including managers, colleagues, and subordinates. According to the social psychology lit-
erature, an individual is concerned with others’ evaluations of his/her behavior (Fishbein
& Ajzen, 1975; Trafimow, 2000). Accordingly, an employee would be inclined to catch and
follow something normative or socially desirable for his/her reference group or organiza-
tion (Rogers, 2003). Within this perspective, an individual usually pays attention to others’
responses to his/her behavior.
In this light, scholars in the innovation literature have disclosed several similar social
characteristics. For example, Moore and Benbasat (1991) proposed image, which is defined
Table 3. Conceptual categorization: social factors.

Core constructs
(Similar
Subcategories constructs) Definitions Main articles
Social relations Image ‘The extent to which using an in- Agarwal and Prasad (1997); Karahanna et
novation is perceived to improve al. (1999); Venkatesh and Davis (2000);
a user’s image or social status’ Venkatesh et al. (2003); Liang et al.
(Moore & Benbasat, 1991) (2007); Venkatesh and Bala (2008)
Subjective norms ‘Individual’s perception that most Wolfe (1995); Karahanna et al. (1999);
(peer influence) of those who are important to Venkatesh and Davis (2000); Morris and
him/her think that he/she should Venkatesh (2000); Pullig, Maxham, and
or should not conduct a specific Hair (2002); Venkatesh et al. (2003);
behavior with regard to an inno- Janssen, van de Vliert, and West (2004);
vation’ (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) Pavlou and Fygenson (2006); Liang et al.
(2007); Hsieh et al. (2008); Venkatesh and
Bala (2008); Kim and Kankanhalli (2009);
Hong et al. (2011); Choi and Moon (2013)
Peer influence: ‘relevant colleagues’ Chau and Hu (2002)
opinions on use of specific tech-
nology’ (Chau & Hu, 2002)
Critical mass ‘Some threshold of participants or Korunka et al. (1997); Yetton et al. (1999);
actions has to be crossed before Edmondson et al. (2001); Venkatesh et
a social movement explodes into al. (2003); Hsieh et al. (2008); Kirsh et al.
being’ (Lou et al., 2000) (2008); Bondarouk et al. (2009); Higgins,
Weiner, and Young (2012); Choi and
Moon (2013)
Network exter- ‘The quality that some innova- Weenig (1999); Yetton et al. (1999);
nalities tions become more valuable as Mohrman, Tenkasi, and Mohrman (2003);
the number of users increases’ Durlak and DuPre (2008); Baer (2012)
(Rogers, 2003)
as the extent to which using an innovation is perceived to improve an individual’s image

or social status, and Thompson et al. (1991) suggested social factors, which refers to an
individual’s internalization of his/her group’s subjective culture or specific agreements
regarding innovation. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) introduced subjective norms, defined as
an employee’s perception that most of those who are important to him/her think that he/she
should or should not conduct a specific behavior with regard to an innovation. All of the
abovementioned factors commonly capture an individual’s subjective perception of social
relations, which drives him/her to implement innovation so that he/she can maintain or
gain potential social status or a positive reputation (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Meanwhile, there is another sub-classification related to social factors from a different
perspective. An employee frequently develops a quantity-based appraisal of social relations,
for example, an individual’s perception of how many people use the innovation. If an indi-
vidual realizes that many employees in his/her group use an innovation, he/she is also highly
likely to try it out. In this light, researchers have suggested that the number of employees
around an individual influences his/her behavioral intention to use an innovation by intro-
ducing the following notions: critical mass, the idea that ‘some threshold of participants
or actions has to be crossed before a social movement explodes into being’ (Fulk, 1990;
Lou, Luo, & Strong, 2000, p. 93; Oliver, Marwell, & Teixeira, 1985); network externalities,
which refers to the quality that some innovations become more valuable as the number
of individuals increases (Rogers, 2003); and the ‘contagion effect’ from peer usage, which
occurs when an employee sees his/her peers using an innovation (Rogers, 2003, p. 353).
In summary, social factors, which are considered either highly normative (socially desira-
ble) or related to the number of employees around an individual, can prompt that individual
to implement a targeted innovation.
3.3. Organizational factors

The factors belonging to the third category are related to manager characteristics, man-
ager-introduced facilitators, and organizational readiness (see Table 4 for the constructs
classified into organizational factors). First, as mentioned earlier, top management or sen-
ior managers play a dominant role in deciding to introduce an innovation at the adoption
stage, but their role does not diminish with the implementation. Rather, top management
characteristics, such as tenure in management and change-oriented behavior, continuously
affect both the adoption and implementation processes (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). For
example, managers with relatively longer tenure in management have undertaken various
projects (Finkelstein, 1992), resolved a high number of managerial issues, and improved
their political skills to manage people effectively (Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981). Accordingly,
the management characteristic tenure in management affects implementation processes in
that the more experience they have in addressing important managerial issues, the more
effectively they encourage employees to participate in implementation (Mumford, 2000).
Moreover, leadership-related attributes also belong to a subgroup of manager charac-
teristics. For instance, empowering leadership, which involves the process of facilitating
employee participation in decision-making (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000),
reinforces the relationship between employee attitude and use behavior (Mathieu, Ahearne,
& Taylor, 2007). In a similar vein, managers’ change-oriented behavior positively influ-
ences employee behavior toward innovation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006), frequently
Table 4. Conceptual categorization: organizational factors.
Core constructs
Manager char- Tenure (experience) in ‘Years served in managerial positions’ (Daman- Repenning (2002); Damanpour and Schneider (2006)
acteristics management pour & Schneider, 2006)
Leadership-related attrib- ‘(Ability or skill) to promote the coordination Wolfe (1995); Sohal (1996); Watkins et al. (1999): Janssen et al. (2004); Krause (2004); Daman-
utes (e.g., empowering of the activities undertaken by members of pour and Schneider (2006); Wolfe et al. (2006); Krause, Gebert, and Kearney (2007); Durlak
leadership, managers’ the organization to attain certain objectives and DuPre (2008); Nembhard, Alexander, Hoff, and Ramanujam (2009); Oke, Munshi, and
change-oriented be- (i.e. organizational innovativeness) of its Walumbwa (2009); Michaelis, Stegmaier, and Sonntag (2010); Higgins et al. (2012); Urquhart,
havior) own’ (Bass, 1990) Porter, Sargeant, Jackson, and Grunfeld (2014)
Managerial patience ‘(Managers’) long-term time orientation’ (Klein Klein and Knight (2005)
& Knight, 2005)
Manager- in- Management/ organization- ‘The expectation, approval, and practical Orlikowski et al. (1995); Yoon et al. (1995); Gill (1996); Watkins et al. (1999); Yetton et al. (1999);
troduced al support for change support for attempts to introduce new and Klein et al. (2001); Edmondson et al. (2001); Efstathiades, Tassou, and Antoniou (2002); Linton
facilitators improved ways of doing things in the work (2002); Repenning (2002); Kumar et al. (2003)
environment’ (West & Farr, 1990) Sharma and Yetton (2003); Janssen et al. (2004)
Krause (2004); Klein and Knight (2005); Ruta (2005); Barlow et al. (2006); Wolfe et al. (2006);
Liang et al. (2007); Durlak and DuPre (2008); Venkatesh and Bala (2008); Bondarouk et al.
(2009); Kim and Kankanhalli (2009); Nembhard et al. (2009); Birken, Lee, and Weiner (2012);
Urquhart, Porter, Grunfeld, and Sargeant (2012)
Participation (openness) in ‘The level of influence that employees have Fairhurst, Green, and Courtright (1995); Yoon et al. (1995); Hausman and Stock (2003); Krause
decision-making in the decision-making process’ (Cotton, (2004); Ruta (2005); Durlak and DuPre (2008)
Vollrath, Foggat, Lengnick-Hall, & Jennings,
1988)
Implementation policies and (a) The quality and quantity of an organ- Goodhue and Thompson (1995); Orlikowski et al. (1995); Clemons et al. (1995); Vrakking (1995);
practices ization’s efforts to train organizational Sohal (1996); Korunka et al. (1997); Butler, Price, Coates, and Pike (1998); Agarwal and Prasad
members to use the new the technology; (1999);
(b) the provision of technical assistance to Klein et al. (2001); Aiman-Smith and Green (2002); Efstathiades et al. (2002); Linton (2002);
technology users on an as-needed basis; (c) Hausman and Stock (2003); Kumar et al. (2003); Sharma and Yetton (2003); Venkatesh et al.
rewards; (d) effective communication re- (2003); Drach-Zahavy, Somech, Granot, and Spitzer (2004); Klein and Knight (2005); Ruta
garding the reasons for the implementation (2005); Liang et al. (2007); Durlak and DuPre (2008); Nembhard et al. (2009); Choi et al. (2011);
of the new technology; (e) the provision of Birken et al. (2012); Urquhart et al. (2012); Kuratko, Covin, and Hornsby (2014); Ljungquist
time for users to experiment with the new (2014); Urquhart et al. (2014); Wang and Miao (2015)
technology; (f) the quality, accessibility, and
user-friendliness of the new technology
(Klein et al., 2001)
INNOVATION: ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT
(Continued)
13
14
Table 4. (Continued).
Core constructs
Organizational (Financial) Resource avail- ‘Resources for capturing the benefits asso- Korunka et al. (1997); Christmann (2000); Klein et al. (2001); Venkatesh et al. (2003); Jones, Jim-
readiness ability ciated with a strategy, a technology, or an mieson, and Griffiths (2005); Klein and Knight (2005); Naveh et al. (2006); Liang et al. (2007);
innovation’ (Choi & Chang, 2009; Christ- Choi and Chang (2009); Urquhart et al. (2012, 2014)
mann, 2000)
(Collective) Learning ‘A set of interrelated practices and beliefs Vrakking (1995); Sohal (1996); Edmondson et al. (2001); Aiman-Smith and Green (2002); Klein
orientation that supports and enables employee and and Knight (2005); Choi and Chang (2009); Nembhard et al. (2009)
organizational skill development, learning,
and growth’ (Klein & Knight, 2005)
J. S. KIM AND G. H. CHUNG
Supportive norms ‘Individual perception of encouragement from Taylor and Todd (1995); Legris et al. (2003); Sharma and Yetton (2003); Beaudry and Pinson-
managers and colleague’ (Choi, 2004) neault (2010); Urquhart et al. (2014)
Implementation climate ‘Individuals’ shared perception of the impor- Wolfe (1995); Klein and Sorra (1996); Korunka et al. (1997); Klein et al. (2001); Pullig et al. (2002);
tance of innovation implementation’ (Klein Baer and Frese (2003); Jones et al. (2005); Klein and Knight (2005); Ruta (2005); Arvidsson,
& Sorra, 1996) Johansson, Ek, and Akselsson (2006); Durlak and DuPre (2008); Michaelis et al. (2010); Choi
et al. (2011); Birken et al. (2012); Choi and Moon (2013); Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2013);
Jacobs, Weiner, and Bunger (2014)
by transferring an organizational vision and goal to employees (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991;
Yukl, 1999). Furthermore, managerial patience (Klein & Knight, 2005) is a critical factor in
this subgroup. If managers push employees to implement an innovation over a long period
of time, the employees may gradually make less of an effort to use it (Repenning & Sterman,
2002). Frequent manager interventions, which can entail employees’ physical fatigue and
emotional burnout, may deteriorate the quality of innovation implemented by employees.
The second subcategory of organizational factors includes manager-introduced facilita-
tors. Drawing on the Status Quo Bias Theory, Kim and Kankanhalli (2009) suggested that
organizational support for change can increase an individual’s acceptance even under a situ-
ation in which switching costs trigger that individual’s resistance. In this light, many scholars
have uncovered the effects of organizational support or manager-introduced facilitators on
implementation. For example, researchers have identified management support as a primary
antecedent that directly fosters implementation-facilitating policies and practices (Leonard-
Barton & Kraus, 1985; McKersie & Walton, 1991) and that later enables employees to forge
an implementation climate – the employees’ shared climate for implementation (Klein et al.,
2001). Additionally, some researchers (e.g., De Dreu & West, 2001; Macduffie, 1995) have
proposed facilitating conditions that improve the institutionalization of innovation by
showing that innovative HR practices, such as participation in decision-making, can boost
employee motivation or increase the likelihood of achieving the organizational (innovation)
goal. Furthermore, Klein et al. (2001) proposed implementation policies and practices as
manager-introduced facilitators to encourage employees to use innovation; these include
communication, rewards, coercion (Fidler & Johnson, 1984; Rousseau, 1988), financial
incentives (Lawler & Mohrman, 1991), the provision of technical assistance (Rivard, 1987),
training programs (Fleischer, Liker, & Arnsdorf, 1988; Klein & Ralls, 1997), and time for
experimentation (Zuboff, 1988).
The last subcategory of organizational factors is labeled organizational readiness. This
subgroup includes several organizational factors. Financial resource availability (Choi
& Chang, 2009) is essential to innovation success because implementation policies and
practices necessarily have an organizational cost (Klein et al., 2001). (Collective) learn-
ing orientation, as a factor within organizational readiness, influences implementation:
in an organization, or in groups with a collective orientation toward learning, employees
rarely hesitate to try innovation because they are rarely blamed for failure (Klein & Knight,
2005), because psychological safety has been shaped (Edmondson, 1999), and because team
learning processes, such as trials and reflection, work properly (Edmondson, Bohmer, &
Pisano, 2001). Furthermore, supportive norms are critical to implementation. Choi (2004)
suggested that supportive norms, as a form of individual perception of encouragement
from managers and colleagues, facilitate an individual’s attitude toward innovation. Finally,
implementation climate, which refers to employees’ shared perception of the importance
of innovation implementation, renders employees’ implementation behavior more likely
(Klein & Sorra, 1996; Klein et al., 2001).
3.4. Individual factors

The last category includes individual factors and consists of two subgroups: an individual’s
demographics and an individual’s trait-like propensity (see Table 5 for the constructs cate-
gorized into individual factors). The first sub-classification is related to demographics, such
Table 5. Conceptual categorization: individual factors.

Core constructs
Demographics Gender, age – Morris and Venkatesh (2000); Venkatesh et al.
(2003); Janssen et al. (2004); Somech and
Drach-Zahavy (2013)
Experience/tenure – Venkatesh and Davis (2000); Venkatesh et al.
(2003); Higgins et al. (2012)
Individual Psychological concepts – Yoon et al. (1995) Gill (1996); Hu et al. (1999);
propensity (e.g., learning & perfor- Venkatesh (1999); Agarwal and Karahanna
mance-goal orientation, (2000); Morris and Venkatesh (2000); Chau and
affect, attitude, emotion, Hu (2002); Linton (2002); Venkatesh et al. (2002);
motivation, personality) Legris et al. (2003); Venkatesh et al. (2003);
Kwon et al. (2007); Beaudry and Pinsonneault
(2010); Michaelis et al. (2010); Choi et al. (2011);
Baer (2012); Choi and Moon (2013); Somech
and Drach-Zahavy (2013); Chen, Yun-Ping Lee,
Parboteeah, Lai, and Chung (2014)
Personal innovativeness ‘Personal tendency Agarwal and Prasad (1997); Korunka et al. (1997);
to accept innova- Karahanna et al. (1999); Yetton et al. (1999); Ven-
tion independent katesh and Davis (2000); Janssen et al. (2004);
of other’s influ- Jones et al. (2005); Yi et al. (2006); Kwon et al.
ence’ (Agarwal & (2007); Malhotra et al. (2008); Venkatesh and
Prasad, 1998) Bala (2008); Urquhart et al. (2012)
as gender and age. For example, Venkatesh et al. (2003) showed the moderating effects of
an individual’s gender and age on the relationships between perceived innovation proper-
ties and implementation behavior as follows: men and younger workers with performance
expectations are inclined to have stronger behavioral intention than women and older work-
ers; in contrast, women and older workers with effort expectations are likely to have stronger
behavioral intention than men and younger workers (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Interestingly,
similar to Venkatesh et al.’s study (2003), a majority of innovation implementation studies
have considered these types of individual factors to be control variables and not primary
antecedents of individual use behavior.
Conversely, there are individual factors associated with propensity. For instance, Choi and
Moon (2013) suggested that an individual with high learning and performance goal orienta-
tion is inclined to have a higher level of self-efficacy and to attempt to improve his/her task
competence. Accordingly, individuals with these types of motivational dispositions are likely
to experiment with new methods, enhance their mastery, or increase their productivity by
adopting new practices (Choi & Moon, 2013). Additionally, others (e.g., Agarwal & Prasad,
1998; Flynn & Goldsmith, 1993; Leonard-Barton & Deschamps, 1988) have proposed that an
individual with personal innovativeness, which is defined as a generalized personal tendency
to accept innovation independent of others’ influence, would exhibit a positive attitude and
behavior toward using innovation. In other words, inherently innovative persons are highly
receptive to change and will use innovation voluntarily (Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002).
4. Future agendas for innovation implementation

Through our systematic review of the innovation implementation literature and by carefully
reading the theory, limitations, and future research directions sections of each paper, we
realized that the current innovation implementation literature has three potential issues.
First, we argue that scholars need to examine the role of social and individual factors
as antecedents of the implementation process to obtain a more balanced view. A simple
comparison of the number of (extracted) core constructs in each category shows that most
existing studies have paid relatively more attention to innovation characteristics and organ-
izational factors than to social and individual factors (i.e. 7 core constructs for innovation
characteristics, 10 for organizational factors, but only 4 for social and individual factors;
see Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5). Although social factors need to be further investigated by future
studies, we address the necessity of studying individual factors in the present study because
an understanding of between-individual (social) dynamics is grounded upon an under-
standing of within-individual mechanisms.
Second, researchers need to investigate the change mechanism of innovation during
implementation. The majority of previous studies have presumed that innovation is an
organizational change but have ignored the possibility that it may also change during imple-
mentation (Choi & Moon, 2013). Some innovations, especially a new technological break-
through, can be designed and adopted with a certain (allowable) degree of unreliability and
imperfection. As employees implement (use) it, however, its defects (e.g., bugs, errors, and
missteps) can emerge (Klein & Knight, 2005) and result in employee requests for modifi-
cation. In this light, the innovation can change during its implementation.
Finally, future research should highlight an unrecognized phenomenon – implementa-
tions of continuously adopted innovations. Most prior studies have examined the imple-
mentation process and outcomes for a single innovation event. In practice, however, many
contemporary organizations adopt a series of innovations, even simultaneously. Thus, schol-
ars should fill the research–practice gap by investigating the implementations of continu-
ously adopted innovations. By doing so, practice-based research can provide evidence-based
practical implications for managers (Jaynes, 2014). In short, we propose three future research
agendas below: (a) one that is directly derived from the aforementioned review of the factors
influencing innovation implementation processes and outcomes; (b) one that challenges the
biased assumption that existing studies have stood on; and (c) one that highlights a novel
innovation implementation phenomenon overlooked by prior research.
4.1. Individual factors as the primary predictors of an individual’s implementation

behavior toward innovation
In recent decades, a growing body of research in the innovation literature has examined the
direct or indirect role of several factors that determine the degree to which an individual
adopts and uses innovation. As shown in the previous section, research in the implemen-
tation literature has paid relatively less attention to the direct role of individual attributes,
such as personality, in predicting individual behaviors toward innovation than to the direct
role of innovation properties and social and organizational factors (Greenhalgh, Robert,
Bate, Macfarlane, & Kyriakidou, 2005). In other words, most studies on innovation imple-
mentation have offered an unbalanced view that neglects individual characteristics (e.g.,
personality) and have mainly focused on contextual factors (e.g., management practices) as
predictors of an individual’s behavior. Specifically, Judge, Thoreson, Pucik, and Welbourne
(1999) argue that the majority of studies on this subject are based on a macro or systems-ori-
ented perspective because they have mainly evolved from four major macro perspectives:
organizational development, strategic choice, resource dependence-institutional theory,

and population ecology (Quinn, Kahn, & Mandl, 1994).
However, as the personality and social psychology literature suggests, personal char-
acteristics (e.g., personality and individual needs) can be crucial antecedents that predict
individual behavior toward innovation implementation, especially when the person–situa-
tion–behavior (P–S–B) triad is simultaneously considered (Funder, 2001). In other words,
‘ideally … if we know everything about a person, and everything about his or her situation,
we should be able to predict what he or she will do’ (Funder, 2001, p. 210). In a parallel
manner, scholars in the creativity literature (e.g., Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004) imply
that taking a more balanced view to address person–context interactions and the influences
of person and context can further expand our knowledge of human behavior. As a result,
Judge et al. (1999) and others (e.g., Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002; Herscovitch & Meyer,
2002) called for more person-oriented research, especially on ‘individual characteristics
associated with propensity’ (Greenhalgh et al., 2005, p. 8).
Only a handful of studies have examined individual propensity, but these studies have
been highly limited because propensity was investigated as a (general) trait and not as idio-
syncratic to a specific situational factor. For example, Agarwal and Prasad (1998) introduce
the notion of personal innovativeness, which refers to an individual’s trait-like, generalized
tendency to try out a new innovation as being a relatively stable disposition that is invariant
across situations (different innovations). However, Trait Activation Theory (TAT; Tett &
Guterman, 2000) suggests that a particular trait gives rise to a specific behavior more readily
when it is coupled with a trait-relevant situation (Kenrick & Funder, 1988; Tett & Guterman,
2000). Arguably, personal motive can predict use behavior more precisely when it encoun-
ters motive-relevant situations (e.g., innovation context; Funder, 2001). Accordingly, studies
from the creativity literature (e.g., Shalley et al., 2004) and TAT may suggest that a more
balanced view that incorporates both individual characteristics (e.g., individual needs) and
the innovation context into a single theoretical framework can deepen our understanding
of human behaviors toward innovation. Therefore, a new perspective, which begins with
individual propensity and takes the P–S–B triad into account, can present a more elaborated
model of individual behaviors toward innovation to researchers and practitioners.
4.2. Innovation change during implementation: multiple forms of implementation

outcomes
Through our comprehensive review, we recognized that most existing studies have relied on
a biased assumption that implementation is a relatively automatic process (Choi & Moon,
2013; Van De Ven & Rogers, 1988). This view effectively endorses the dichotomized imple-
mentation outcomes of either acceptance or rejection of innovation by individual users or
the organization. However, resorting to this somewhat simplified assumption, previous
research has overlooked the fact that although an organization introduces an innovation to
change its employees and work practices, quite often, the innovation itself changes during
implementation (Choi & Chang, 2009). These studies presumed that employees are passive
recipients who must merely follow managerial directions (e.g., adoption of innovation)
rather than active participants in innovation (Greenhalgh et al., 2005).
However, a growing body of organizational behavior research highlights the more active
roles of individuals during innovation implementation such that they can develop their
(positive or negative) feelings about an innovation, experiment with it, and attempt to
improve tasks through it (Greenhalgh et al., 2005). Some employees may like an innovation,
whereas others may dislike it. In this case, the former may form a driving group for the inno-
vation, while the latter may compose a restraining group against the innovation (cf. driving
vs. restraining force; Lewin, 1961). Two competing or multiple subgroups with differing,
often opposing, inclinations toward innovation implementation may exist (Ansari, Fiss, &
Zajac, 2010), and they will encourage employees to fully, minimally, or never participate
in implementing the innovation.
Some scholars in other branches of the literature have acknowledged that innovation can
result in implementation outcomes that are different from the original intended design of
the innovation. For example, identifying deviation from the original design as a potential
threat to successful implementation, policy and education researchers have underscored the
importance of high-fidelity implementation, which refers to the degree to which employees
implement an innovation as intended by designers or adopters (Dusenbury, Brannigan,
Falco, & Hansen, 2003). Thus, we also call for future studies in the innovation implemen-
tation literature to focus on a more realistic situation where innovation adoption evokes a
power struggle among subgroups and to empirically explore the intermediate processes and
mechanisms that lead to different implementation outcomes (e.g., perfect implementation,
minimal implementation, and implementation failure; Chung & Choi, in press) beyond the
bifurcated outcomes of acceptance or rejection.
4.3. Implementation of a series of innovations as a target phenomenon

Prior studies on innovation have investigated various factors surrounding a target innova-
tion, such as innovation characteristics, social factors, organizational factors, and individual
characteristics, to elucidate the occurrence of high rates of implementation failure and the
consequent assimilation gaps (Klein & Knight, 2005; Oreg, 2003; Venkatesh et al., 2003).
However, most of these studies identified an innovation as a single event to be examined and
thus overlooked the fact that any innovation in contemporary organizations is embedded in
a continuous stream of innovations introduced to employees for implementation (Bordia,
Restubog, Jimmieson, & Irmer, 2011). Only a handful of studies examined the role of change
(innovation) frequency as an indicator of continuous innovation introduction, but these
studies did not consider change frequency as a primary predictor affecting the innovation
process. For example, Carter, Armenakis, Feild, and Mossholder (2013) revealed the moder-
ating effect of change frequency on the link between leader–member relationship quality and
employee task performance but ignored the actual process of innovation implementation.
However, the continuous adoption of innovations in an organization may have direct
implications for the implementation behavior and innovation-driven performance of
employees because such a continuous flow of innovations demands that employees make
ceaseless efforts to implement innovations (Carter et al., 2013). Organizations introduce
various innovations, including technological and administrative ones, to address issues
related to processes, products, or people (Birkinshaw, Hamel, & Mol, 2008; Rogers, 2003;
Tidd, 2001). As a result, employees in contemporary organizations are exposed to a stream
of innovations rather than to an innovation as a single, isolated organizational event (Sung
et al., 2011). Such a situation may often result in innovation-related psychological and
physical exhaustion among employees, which attenuates their willingness and capacity to
further implement subsequent innovations. Accordingly, future research should investigate

the direct effects of innovation frequency on individuals’ perceptions, attitudes, and behav-
iors toward innovation when organizations adopt a series of innovations over a prolonged
period.
5. Conclusion
The present study aimed to provide a systematic review of the existing innovation imple-
mentation literature for developing future research agendas. To this end, we systematically
classified the factors investigated by scholars in the literature into four categories: (1) inno-
vation characteristics (e.g., perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, relative advantage,
complexity, and technology self-efficacy; Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Davis, 1989; Moore &
Benbasat, 1991; Thompson et al., 1991); (2) social factors (e.g., subjective norms, critical mass,
network externalities, and peer usage; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Fulk, 1990; Rogers, 2003);
(3) organizational factors (e.g., management support, managers’ tenure in management,
empowering leadership, implementation policies and practices, participation in decision-
making, financial resource availability, (collective) learning orientation, and implementa-
tion climate; Arnold et al., 2000; Choi & Chang, 2009; De Dreu & West, 2001; Klein et al.,
2001; Macduffie, 1995; Mumford, 2000); and (4) individual factors (e.g., demographics,
learning and performance goal orientation, and personal innovativeness; Agarwal & Prasad,
1998; Choi & Moon, 2013; Leonard-Barton & Deschamps, 1988; Venkatesh et al., 2003).
The current research also aimed to suggest future research agendas. Through our com-
prehensive review of the existing innovation literature, we developed three future research
agendas: (a) scholars should emphasize the role of individual characteristics as primary
antecedents for implementation processes and outcomes for a more balanced understand-
ing of the individual-level implementation process; (b) future research should empirically
investigate the process through which an innovation itself changes during implementation
and the multiple forms of implementation outcomes; and (c) researchers should investigate
continuous innovation adoptions and implementations within an organization over an
extended period.
Although a growing body of research on innovation implementation exists, there is a
relative lack of attention to the individual factors, to the innovation itself changing during
implementation and resulting in multiple forms of implementation outcomes, and to the
experiences of companies undergoing a series of innovation implementations. To present a
better understanding of innovation implementation to practitioners, future studies should
draw on different theoretical frameworks, utilize various methodological approaches (e.g.,
longitudinal study or qualitative method) and target overlooked phenomena.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful comments of Markus Perkmann, Associate Editor,
and anonymous reviewers. The corresponding author would also like to thank Jin Nam Choi, profes-
sor at Seoul National University, and Seungdoe Lee, CEO of Hankuk Metal Co., Ltd. for their help,
advice and support.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The present research has been conducted by the Research Grant of Kwangwoon University in 2016.
ORCID
Goo Hyeok Chung http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1458-652X
References
Adams, R. (2003). Perceptions of innovations: Exploring and developing innovation classification
(Doctoral thesis). Cranfield University, Bedford, UK.
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and
beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 665–694.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness
in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28, 557–582.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness
in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9, 204–215.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new
information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30, 361–391.
Aiman-Smith, L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Implementing new manufacturing technology: The related
effects of technology characteristics and user learning activities. Academy of Management Journal,
45, 421–430.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ansari, S. M., Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2010). Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy
of Management Review, 35, 67–92.
Arnold, D. E. (1996). The role of HRD in the successful implementation of information systems.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 271–278.
Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire:
The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 249–269.
Arvidsson, M., Johansson, C. R., Ek, Å., & Akselsson, R. (2006). Organizational climate in air traffic
control: Innovative preparedness for implementation of new technology and organizational
development in a rule governed organization. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 119–129.
Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1102–1119.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological
safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45–68.
Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2015). Adaptation to information technology: A holistic nomological
network from implementation to job outcomes. Management Science, 62, 156–179.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1,
237–269.
Barlow, J., Bayer, S., & Curry, R. (2006). Implementing complex innovations in fluid multi-stakeholder
environments: Experiences of ‘telecare’. Technovation, 26, 396–406.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2010). The other side of acceptance: Studying the direct and indirect
effects of emotions on information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 34, 689–710.
Bennis, W. G. (1965). Theory and method in applying behavioral science to planned organizational
change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1, 337–360.
Birken, S. A., Lee, S. Y., & Weiner, B. J. (2012). Uncovering middle managers’ role in healthcare
innovation implementation. Implementation Science, 7, 28–39.
Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management
Review, 33, 825–845.
Bondarouk, T., Kees Looise, J., & Lempsink, B. (2009). Framing the implementation of HRM
innovation: HR professionals vs line managers in a construction company. Personnel Review, 38,
472–491.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Jimmieson, N. L., & Irmer, B. E. (2011). Haunted by the Past: Effects
of poor change management history on employee attitudes and turnover. Group & Organization
Management, 36, 191–222.
Butler, R. J., Price, D. H. R., Coates, P. D., & Pike, R. H. (1998). Organizing for innovation: Loose or
tight control? Long Range Planning, 31, 775–782.
Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2004). Toward an understanding of the relationships
among organizational change, individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A
cross-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 868–882.
Carayannis, E. G., & Turner, E. (2006). Innovation diffusion and technology acceptance: The case of
PKI technology. Technovation, 26, 847–855.
Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Mossholder, K. W. (2013). Transformational leadership,
relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational
change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 942–958.
Chau, P. Y., & Hu, P. J. (2002). Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual
professionals: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 191–229.
Chen, I. H., Yun-Ping Lee, A., Parboteeah, K. P., Lai, C. S., & Chung, A. (2014). The effects of
physicians’ personal characteristics on innovation readiness in Taiwan’s hospitals. Innovation, 16,
158–169.
Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual dynamics of innovation-use behavior in organizations.
Human Performance, 17, 397–414.
Choi, J. N., & Chang, J. Y. (2009). Innovation implementation in the public sector: An integration of
institutional and collective dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 245–253.
Choi, J. N., & Moon, W. J. (2013). Multiple forms of innovation implementation. Organizational
Dynamics, 42, 290–297.
Choi, J. N., & Price, R. H. (2005). The effects of person–innovation fit on individual responses to
innovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 83–96.
Choi, J. N., Sung, S. Y., Lee, K., & Cho, D. S. (2011). Balancing cognition and emotion: Innovation
implementation as a function of cognitive appraisal and emotional reactions toward innovation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 107–124.
Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost advantage:
The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 663–680.
Chung, G. H., & Choi, J. N. (inpress). Innovation implementation as a dynamic equilibrium: Emergent
processes and divergent outcomes. Group & Organization Management. http://journals.sagepub.
com/doi/abs/10.1177/1059601116645913
Chung, G. H., Du, J., & Choi, J. N. (2014). How do employees adapt to organizational change driven
by cross-border M&As? A case in China. Journal of World Business, 49, 78–86.
Clemons, E. K., Thatcher, M. E., & Row, M. C. (1995). Identifying sources of reengineering failures:
A study of the behavioral factors contributing to reengineering risks. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 12, 9–36.
Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team social
networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational
competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 740–751.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and
initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189–211.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence
for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126, 376–380.
Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Foggat, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee
participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 13, 8–22.
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects
of environment, organization and top managers1. British Journal of Management, 17, 215–236.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A
comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.
De Dreu, C. K., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of
participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Chandler, M. M. (2011). Motivating employees. In Z., Sheldon (Ed.). APA
handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 65–135). Washington, DC, US:
American Psychological Association. viii, 960.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Drach-Zahavy, A., Somech, A., Granot, M., & Spitzer, A. (2004). Can we win them all? Benefits and
costs of structured and flexible innovation–implementations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25, 217–234.
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence
of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350.
Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity
of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education
Research, 18, 237–256.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and
new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685–716.
Efstathiades, A., Tassou, S., & Antoniou, A. (2002). Strategic planning, transfer and implementation
of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (AMT). Development of an integrated process plan.
Technovation, 22, 201–212.
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two-dimensional
model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7, 17–26.
Fairhurst, G. T., Green, S., & Courtright, J. (1995). Inertial forces and the implementation of a socio-
technical systems approach: A communication study. Organization Science, 6, 168–185.
Fidler, L. A., & Johnson, J. D. (1984). Communication and innovation implementation. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 704–711.
Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 35, 505–538.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory
and research. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fleischer, M., Liker, J., & Arnsdorf, D. (1988). Effective use of computer-aided design and computer-
aided engineering in manufacturing. Ann Arbor, MI: Industrial Technology Institute.
Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1993). A validation of the Goldsmith and Hofacker innovativeness
scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 1105–1116.
Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level
framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research,
55, 163–176.
Fulk, Janet (1990). Toward a ‘critical mass’ theory of interactive media. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield
(Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 194–218). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197–221.
Gill, T. G. (1996). Expert systems usage: Task change and intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, 20,
301–329.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS
Quarterly, 19, 213–236.
Green, S., Gavin, M., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1995). Radical technological innovation: Measure
development and validation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42, 203–214.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations
in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82,
581–629.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, F., Bate, P., Macfarlane, F., & Kyriakidou, O. (2005). Diffusion of innovations
in health service organisations. Malden, MA: BMJ Books Blackwell.
Griffith, T. L. (1999). Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management
Review, 24, 472–488.
Haour, G. (2004). Resolving the innovation paradox. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hausman, A., & Stock, J. R. (2003). Adoption and implementation of technological innovations
within long-term relationships. Journal of Business Research, 56, 681–686.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-
component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474–487.
Higgins, M. C., Weiner, J., & Young, L. (2012). Implementation teams: A new lever for organizational
change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 366–388.
Hong, W., Thong, J. Y., Chasalow, L. C., & Dhillon, G. (2011). User acceptance of agile information
systems: A model and empirical test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28, 235–272.
Hsieh, J. P. A., Rai, A., & Keil, M. (2008). Understanding digital inequality: Comparing continued
use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged. MIS Quarterly,
32, 97–126.
Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance
model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 16, 91–112.
Jacobs, S. R., Weiner, B. J., & Bunger, A. C. (2014). Context matters: Measuring implementation
climate among individuals and groups. Implementation Science, 9, 1–30.
Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of person-environment
fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 193–212.
Janssen, O., van de Vliert, E., & West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of individual and group
innovation: A special issue introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 129–145.
Jaynes, S. (2014). Using principles of practice-based research to teach evidence-based practice in
social work. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 11, 222–235.
Jones, R. A., Jimmieson, N. L., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The impact of organizational culture and
reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: The mediating role of readiness for
change. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 361–386.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with
organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.
Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7, 1–53.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across
time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly,
23, 183–213.
Keen, P. G. (1981). Information systems and organizational change. Communications of the ACM,
24, 24–33.
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation
debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23–24.
Kim, H. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2009). Investigating user resistance to information systems
implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33, 567–582.
Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual,
organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative
innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 689–713.
Kirsh, S. R., Lawrence, R. H., & Aron, D. C. (2008). Tailoring an intervention to the context and system
redesign related to the intervention: A case study of implementing shared medical appointments
for diabetes. Implementation Science, 3, 1–15.
Klein, K. J., & Knight, A. P. (2005). Innovation implementation overcoming the challenge. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 243–246.
Klein, K. J., & Ralls, R. S. (1997). The unintended organizational consequences of technology training:
Implications for training theory, research, and practice. In J. K. Ford, S. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger,
E. Salas, & M. Teachout (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in organizations (pp. 323–354).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management
Review, 21, 1055–1080.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing computerized technology: An
organizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 811–824.
Korunka, C., Weiss, A., & Zauchner, S. (1997). An interview study of ‘continuous’ implementations
of information technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 16, 3–16.
Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and
of innovation-related behaviors: An empirical investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 79–102.
Krause, D. E., Gebert, D., & Kearney, E. (2007). Implementing process innovations the benefits of
combining delegative-participative with consultative-advisory leadership. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies, 14, 16–25.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person-Environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (Vol. 3, pp. 3–50). Washington, DC: APA.
Kumar, V., Maheshwari, B., & Kumar, U. (2003). An investigation of critical management issues in
ERP implementation: Empirical evidence from Canadian organizations. Technovation, 23, 793–807.
Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2014). Why implementing corporate innovation is so
difficult. Business Horizons, 57, 647–655.
Kwon, O., Choi, K., & Kim, M. (2007). User acceptance of context-aware services: Self-efficacy,
user innovativeness and perceived sensitivity on contextual pressure. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 26, 483–498.
Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (1991). Quality circles: After the honeymoon. In B. M. Staw (Ed.),
Psychological dimensions of organizational behavior. (pp. 523–533). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical
review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40, 191–204.
Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1988). Managerial influence in the implementation of new
technology. Management Science, 34, 1252–1265.
Leonard-Barton, D., & Kraus, W. A. (1985). Implementing new technology. Harvard Business Review,
63, 102–110.
Lewin, K. (1961). Quasi-stationary social equilibria and the problem of permanent change. In W. G.
Bennis, K. Benne, & T. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change (pp. 238–244). New York, NY: Wiley.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of
institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31, 59–87.
Linton, J. D. (2002). Implementation research: State of the art and future directions. Technovation,
22, 65–79.
Ljungquist, U. (2014). Unbalanced dynamic capabilities as obstacles of organisational efficiency:
Implementation issues in innovative technology adoption. Innovation, 16, 82–95.
Lou, H., Luo, W., & Strong, D. (2000). Perceived critical mass effect on groupware acceptance.
European Journal of Information Systems, 9, 91–103.
Macduffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational
logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. ILR Review, 48, 197–221.
Malhotra, Y., Galletta, D. F., & Kirsch, L. J. (2008). How endogenous motivations influence
user intentions: Beyond the dichotomy of extrinsic and intrinsic user motivations. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 25, 267–300.
Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26,
430–444.
Mathieu, J., Ahearne, M., & Taylor, S. R. (2007). A longitudinal cross-level model of leader and
salesperson influences on sales force technology use and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 528–537.
McKersie, R. B., & Walton, R. E. (1991). Organizational change. In M. Scott Morton (Ed.), The
corporation of the 1990s: Information technology and organizational transformation (pp. 244–277).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2010). Shedding light on followers’ innovation
implementation behavior: The role of transformational leadership, commitment to change, and
climate for initiative. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 408–429.
Mohrman, S. A., Tenkasi, R. V., & Mohrman, A. M. (2003). The role of networks in fundamental
organizational change a grounded analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 301–323.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of
adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2, 192–222.
Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications
for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53, 375–403.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human
Resource Management Review, 10, 313–351.
Naveh, E., Meilich, O., & Marcus, A. (2006). The effects of administrative innovation implementation
on performance: An organizational learning approach. Strategic Organization, 4, 275–302.
Nembhard, I. M., Alexander, J. A., Hoff, T. J., & Ramanujam, R. (2009). Why does the quality of health
care continue to lag? insights from management research. Academy of Management Perspectives,
23, 24–42.
Nord, W. R., & Tucker, A. (1987). Implementing routine and radical innovations. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Oke, A., Munshi, N., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). The influence of leadership on innovation processes
and activities. Organizational Dynamics, 38, 64–72.
Okoli, C. (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications
of the Association for Information Systems, 37, 879–910.
Oliver, P. E., Marwell, G., & Teixeira, R. (1985). Interdependence, group heterogeneity and the
production of collective goods: A theory of the critical mass, I’. American Journal of Sociology,
91, 522–556.
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 680–693.
Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic communication:
The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science, 6, 423–444.
Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption:
An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30, 115–143.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., … Sobrero, M. (2013).
Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry
relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442.
Petersilia, J. (1990). Conditions that permit intensive supervision programs to survive. Crime &
Delinquency, 36, 126–145.
Pullig, C., Maxham, J. G., & Hair, J. F. (2002). Salesforce automation systems: An exploratory
examination of organizational factors associated with effective implementation and salesforce
productivity. Journal of Business Research, 55, 401–415.
Quinn, R. E., Kahn, J. A., & Mandl, M. J. (1994). Perspectives on organizational change: Exploring
movement at the interface. In G. Jerald (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science.
Series in applied psychology (pp. 109–133). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Repenning, N. P. (2002). A simulation-based approach to understanding the dynamics of innovation
implementation. Organization Science, 13, 109–127.
Repenning, N. P., & Sterman, J. D. (2002). Capability traps and self-confirming attribution errors in
the dynamics of process improvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 265–295.
Rivard, S. (1987). Successful implementation of end-user computing. Interfaces, 17, 25–33.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (p. 12). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., & Adhikarya, R. (1979). Diffusion of innovations: An up-to-date review and
commentary. Communication Yearbook, 3, 67–81.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations; a cross-cultural approach.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Managing the change to an automated office: Lessons from five case studies.
Office Technology and People, 4, 31–52.
Ruta, C. D. (2005). The application of change management theory to HR portal implementation in
subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Human Resource Management, 44, 35–53.
Saeed, K. A., Abdinnour, S., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (2010). Examining the
impact of pre-implementation expectations on post-implementation use of enterprise systems: A
longitudinal study. Decision Sciences, 41, 659–688.
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.
Satzinger, J. W., & Olfman, L. (1995). Computer support for group work: Perceptions of the usefulness
of support scenarios and end-user tools. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11, 115–148.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual
innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics
on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.
Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2003). The contingent effects of management support and task interdependence
on successful information systems implementation. MIS Quarterly, 27, 533–556.
Slaughter, S. (1993). Innovation and learning during implementation: A comparison of user and
manufacturer innovations. Research Policy, 22, 81–95.
Sohal, A. S. (1996). Assessing AMT implementations: an empirical field study. Technovation, 16,
377–444.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation
the role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39, 684–708.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Stumpf, S. A., Brief, A. P., & Hartman, K. (1987). Self-efficacy expectations and coping with career-
related events. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 91–108.
Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship
behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 558–577.
Sung, S. Y., Cho, D. S., & Choi, J. N. (2011). Who initiates and who implements? A multi-stage, multi-
agent model of organizational innovation. Journal of Management & Organization, 17, 344–363.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19,
561–570.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational
consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–423.
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual
model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15, 125–143.
Tidd, J. (2001). Innovation management in context: Environment, organization and performance.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 169–183.
Trafimow, D. (2000). A theory of attitudes, subjective norms, and private versus collective self-
concepts. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context (pp. 47–65).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management,
14, 207–222.
Trivisonno, M., & Barling, J. (2016). Organizational leadership and employee commitment. In
J. Meyer (Ed.), Handbook of employee commitment (pp. 305–318). Cheltenham and Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Urquhart, R., Porter, G. A., Grunfeld, E., & Sargeant, J. (2012). Exploring the interpersonal-,
organization-, and system-level factors that influence the implementation and use of an innovation-
synoptic reporting-in cancer care. Implementation Science, 7, 12–21.
Urquhart, R., Porter, G. A., Sargeant, J., Jackson, L., & Grunfeld, E. (2014). Multi-level factors influence
the implementation and use of complex innovations in cancer care: A multiple case study of
synoptic reporting. Implementation Science, 9, 1–33.
Van De Ven, A. H., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Innovations and organizations: Critical perspectives.
Communication Research, 15, 632–651.
Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation.
MIS Quarterly, 23, 239–260.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions. Decision Sciences, 39, 273–315.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Speier, C., & Morris, M. G. (2002). User acceptance enablers in individual decision
making about technology: Toward an integrated model. Decision Sciences, 33, 297–316.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478.
Vila, L. E., Pérez, P. J., & Coll-Serrano, V. (2014). Innovation at the workplace: Do professional
competencies matter? Journal of Business Research, 67, 752–757.
Vrakking, W. J. (1995). The implementation game. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
8, 31–46.
Wang, G., & Miao, C. F. (2015). Effects of sales force market orientation on creativity, innovation
implementation, and sales performance. Journal of Business Research, 68, 2374–2382.
Watkins, K. E., Ellinger, A. D., & Valentine, T. (1999). Understanding support for innovation in a
large-scale change effort: The manager-as-instructor approach. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 10, 63–77.
Weenig, M. W. (1999). Communication networks in the diffusion of an innovation in an organization1.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1072–1092.
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4, 67–75.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation
and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 3–13). Chichester: Wiley.
Wolfe, R. A. (1995). Human resource management innovations: Determinants of their adoption and
implementation. Human Resource Management, 34, 313–327.
Wolfe, R., Wright, P. M., & Smart, D. L. (2006). Radical HRM innovation and competitive advantage:
The Moneyball story. Human Resource Management, 45, 111–145.
Yetton, P., Sharma, R., & Southon, G. (1999). Successful IS innovation: The contingent contributions
of innovation characteristics and implementation process. Journal of Information Technology, 14,
53–68.
Yi, M. Y., Fiedler, K. D., & Park, J. S. (2006). Understanding the role of individual innovativeness in
the acceptance of IT-based innovations: Comparative analyses of models and measures. Decision
Sciences, 37, 393–426.
Yoon, Y., Guimaraes, T., & O’Neal, Q. (1995). Exploring the factors associated with expert systems
success. MIS Quarterly, 19, 83–106.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 33–48.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
View publication stats

2017.06 Innovation OrganizationManagement

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

2017.06 Innovation OrganizationManagement

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Implementing innovations within organizations: a systematic review and

Article in Innovation: Organization & Management · June 2017

Jungsu Kim Goo Hyeok Chung

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 1447-9338 (Print) 2204-0226 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rimp20

Implementing innovations within organizations: a

Jung Su Kim & Goo Hyeok Chung

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2017.1335943

Published online: 20 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [Kwangwoon University] Date: 21 June 2017, At: 00:00

Implementing innovations within organizations: a systematic

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Goo Hyeok Chung ghchung@kw.ac.kr

change or performance increase – is essential for innovation success, innovation success

Figure 1. Comparison between cumulative publications on innovation and those on implementation

2. A systematic review of innovation implementation

implementation based on their four categorizations of the antecedents affecting an indi-

Table 1. Synthesis of articles on innovation implementation (1995–2015).

Table 2. Conceptual categorization: innovation characteristics.

and Dhillon (2011)

also participate in the implementation (i.e. effort-oriented evaluation or expectation). As

3.2. Social factors

Table 3. Conceptual categorization: social factors.

as the extent to which using an innovation is perceived to improve an individual’s image

3.3. Organizational factors

3.4. Individual factors

Table 5. Conceptual categorization: individual factors.

4. Future agendas for innovation implementation

4.1. Individual factors as the primary predictors of an individual’s implementation

organizational development, strategic choice, resource dependence-institutional theory,

4.2. Innovation change during implementation: multiple forms of implementation

4.3. Implementation of a series of innovations as a target phenomenon

further implement subsequent innovations. Accordingly, future research should investigate

View publication stats

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen