Don't hang up: Organizational diffusion of the intelligent telephone

Analysis of an effort to introduce an “intelligent” or “enhanced” PBS telephone system at two separate office complexes within the same Fortune 500 firm suggests criteria for success and failure may differ at the organizational level and at the user level.

Abstract

This paper analyzes an effort to introduce an "intelligent" or "enhanced" PBS telephone system at two separate office complexes within the same Fortune 500 firm. The effort to diffuse this communication technology officially succeeded at the one site and failed at the other site. This paradox presented an opportunity to study both successful and unsuccessful implementation of a new communications technology within a single organization. It also provided an opportunity to test the adequacy of traditional diffusion theory for explaining the rejection of an innovation. In particular, diffusion theory does not emphasize political or symbolic forces in organizations, or the disjuncture between the organization and the end user as adopters. Results from case study interviews and multivariate analyses suggest the following: 1.The attributes of the innovation did not discriminate between the success and failure building, or among the number of system functions used. 2.The number of enhanced telephone functions used (as a measure of level of adoption) is very slightly associated in the success building with increased phone traffic and usefulness, but is not associated in the failure building with any perceived impacts. 3.Technical factors interacted with political factors in preventing a successful adoption. 4.The relationships of attitudes and use of the telephone to perceive impacts and number of functions used differed by organizational role - management, technical staff, and administrative personnel. 5.Criteria for success and failure may differ at the organizational level and at the user level. We would like to acknowledge the assistance, support and information provided by the organization and respondents who made this study possible. We also thank Dr. Robert W. Hodge and Dr. Bob Meadow and anonymous reviewers for their comments.