Group items tagged

Based on theories from the technological innovation literature, this study develops an integrated model of information systems (IS) adoption in small businesses. The model specifies contextual variables such as decision-maker characteristics, IS characteristics, organizational characteristics, and environmental characteristics as primary determinants of IS adoption in small businesses. A questionnaire survey was conducted in 166 small businesses. Data analysis shows that small businesses with certain CEO characteristics (innovativeness and level of IS knowledge), innovation characteristics (relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity of IS), and organizational characteristics (business size and level of employees' IS knowledge) are more likely to adopt IS. While CEO and innovation characteristics are important determinants of the decision to adopt, they do not affect the extent of IS adoption. The extent of IS adoption is mainly determined by organizational characteristics. Finally, the environmental characteristic of competition has no direct effect on small business adoption of IS.

The process by which a firm adopts and implements technological innovations is influenced by the technological context, the organizational context, and the environmental context (Tornatzky and Fleisher 1990). The technological context includes the internal and external technologies that are relevant to the firm. Technologies may include both equipment as well as processes. The organizational context refers to the characteristics and resources of the firm, including the firm’s size, degree of centralization, degree of formalization, managerial structure, human resources, amount of slack resources, and linkages among employees. The environmental context includes the size and structure of the industry, the firm’s competitors, the macroeconomic context, and the regulatory environment (Tornatzky and Fleisher 1990). These three elements present “both constraints and opportunities for technological innovation” (Tornatzky and Fleisher 1990, p. 154). Thus, these three elements influence the way a firm sees the need for, searches for, and adopts new technology.

Focusing on the unique challenges that socially conscious companies face, Getting to Scale addresses the issues that affect all businesses: * Production and personnel * Access to capital and markets * Changes in organizational structure * Ownership and control * Corporate culture Filled with practical and tested advice, Getting to Scale provides a blueprint for socially responsible entrepreneurs in any industry who want to benefit larger groups of customers, have a greater positive impact on their communities, and maintain their independence by scaling up their enterprises.

For decades our understanding of economic production has been that individuals order their productive activities in one of two ways: either as employees in firms, following the directions of managers, or as individuals in markets, following price signals. This dichotomy was first identified in the early work of Nobel laureate Ronald Coase, and was developed most explicitly in the work of neo-institutional economist Oliver Williamson. In the past three or four years, public attention has focused on a fifteen-year-old social-economic phenomenon in the software development world. This phenomenon, called free software or open source software, involves thousands or even tens of thousands of programmers contributing to large and small scale project, where the central organizing principle is that the software remains free of most constraints on copying and use common to proprietary materials. No one "owns" the software in the traditional sense of being able to command how it is used or developed, or to control its disposition. The result is the emergence of a vibrant, innovative and productive collaboration, whose participants are not organized in firms and do not choose their projects in response to price signals.

much broader social-economic phenomenon. I suggest that we are seeing is the broad and deep emergence of a new, third mode of production in the digitally networked environment. I call this mode "commons-based peer-production," to distinguish it from the property- and contract-based models of firms and markets. Its central characteristic is that groups of individuals successfully collaborate on large-scale projects following a diverse cluster of motivational drives and social signals, rather than either market prices or managerial commands.

this mode has systematic advantages over markets and managerial hierarchies when the object of production is information or culture, and where the capital investment necessary for production-computers and communications capabilities-is widely distributed instead of concentrated. In particular, this mode of production is better than firms and markets for two reasons. First, it is better at identifying and assigning human capital to information and cultural production processes. In this regard, peer-production has an advantage in what I call "information opportunity cost." That is, it loses less information about who the best person for a given job might be than do either of the other two organizational modes. Second, there are substantial increasing returns to allow very larger clusters of potential contributors to interact with very large clusters of information resources in search of new projects and collaboration enterprises. Removing property and contract as the organizing principles of collaboration substantially reduces transaction costs involved in allowing these large clusters of potential contributors to review and select which resources to work on, for which projects, and with which collaborators. This results in allocation gains, that increase more than proportionately with the increase in the number of individuals and resources that are part of the system. The article concludes with an overview of how these models use a variety of technological and social strategies to overcome the collective action problems usually solved in managerial and market-based systems by property and contract.

In a quest for reliable indicators of individual and organizational well-being, the last few years have seen a surge in research on happiness - its drivers, its relations to material possessions and money, and its impacts on health and work. An increasingly influential global group of economists, psychologists, marketers, designers and government officials are busy refining existing formulas for measuring and predicting happiness. Some leading countries and businesses already publish national happiness statistics in parallel to economic figures for a more complete assessment of prosperity.

In the traditional, profit-driven model of business, money does, by definition, equal happiness. But as the focus for many organizations expands beyond profits to include a host of other factors (e.g., their environmental and social impacts), a satisfied workforce becomes a more reliable indicator of organizational well-being, and an important means to achieving true triple-bottom-line success. Employee happiness surveys have grown in popularity since the rise of such assessments on a larger scale; countries including Bhutan, France and the UK have adopted a “happiness index” as an alternative prosperity measure to GDP, using the findings to help inform future policy. Applying this methodology to business, more and more organizations - including companies such as Zappos and Nestlé Purina - are correlating employee well-being levels to productivity, which in turn informs profitability.