JBM (2009) 3:129–146

DOI 10.1007/s12087-009-0005-9

R e s e a r c h Art i c l e

A Process Perspective on Organizational

Innovation Adoption – A Qualitative Case Study

Hannu Makkonen

Abstract:  The purpose of this study is to scrutinize organizational innovation adoption from a
process perspective. This qualitative single-case study is based on ten thematic interviews within
the food-processing industry.
The results accentuate the embedded nature of organizational innovation adoption in that the
process studied was entangled with the company’s previous and current business processes and
with its future visions.

Keywords:  Organizational innovation adoption · Innovation diffusion · Adoption process ·

Organizational decision making · New technology · Case study

© Gabler-Verlag 2009
H. Makkonen ()
Department of Marketing, Turku School of Economics, Turku, Finland
e-mail: hannu.makkonen@tse.fi
130 H. Makkonen

Introduction

The increased turbulence, complexity and competitiveness in business have made the
identification, evaluation and implementation of new technologies critical determinants
of organizational productivity, competition and survival. The purpose of this study is to
scrutinize organizational innovation adoption from a process perspective. The empirical
part investigates an adoption process in which a large food-processing firm adopted a
new microbiological quality-assurance method to test the safety and purity of the final
products. The study is a single-case study and is based on ten interviews. All the employ-
ees from both the adopter and the supplier companies who took part in the adoption pro-
cess were interviewed. The internationalization of the food-processing industry combined
with a growing amount of global raw-material sourcing is increasingly posing challenges
for companies, authorities and governments in terms of guaranteeing food safety. Since
improved food safety is both time-consuming and expensive, food producers find it dif-
ficult to cover the resulting costs of testing. These circumstances offer an interesting and
fruitful context in which to study the organizational innovation adoption process.
The results clearly indicate the embedded nature of organizational innovation adoption
in that the process studied was entangled with the prior and current business of the adop-
ter as well as with its future visions. It is therefore suggested that a more holistic view be
adopted, and an activity-based perspective comprising primary and secondary adoption
activities is put forward. According to this perspective the adoption process as an activity
is in continuous interaction with the other activities of the adopter company.

Organizational innovation adoption

As Ozanne and Churchill (1971, p. 322) state, “the industrial adoption process is nothing
more than a decision process leading to the purchase of an industrial innovation.” Simi-
larly, Woodside and Biemans (2005, p. 384–385) define adoption as “the decision-making
process of an individual unit of adoption…” Becker and Whisler (1967, p. 466) reviewed
the literature on organizational processes of innovative behavior, and reported “a subs-
tantial degree of agreement” on the four-stage process: stimulus, conception, proposal,
and adoption (or rejection), while in the first edition of his seminal book Diffusion of
Innovations (1962) Rogers conceptualized the adoption process as awareness, interest,
evaluation, trial and adoption. On the basis of these statements it could be stated that
innovation adoption is the process of deciding to take an innovation into use. In the same
book Rogers (1962, p. 17) defines adoption as “a decision to continue full-scale use of an
innovation”. According to Klein and Sorra (1996, p. 1055), on the other hand, adoption is
“a decision, typically made by senior organizational managers, that employees within the
organization will use the innovation in their work.” Klein, Conn and Sorra (2001, p. 811)
similarly define adoption as “an organization’s decision to install an innovation within
the organization… adoption is a decision point, a plan, or a purchase.” In this respect the
definition of adoption is at least two-fold: it is both a decision-making process from start
to finish, as well as this final decision choice as an outcome of the process (for a classifi-
A Process Perspective on Organizational Innovation … 131

cation of hierarchical levels of decisions see Kriger and Barnes 1992, p. 446–450). Both
conceptualizations, choice and process, are described in the literature.
The distinction between the choice and process conceptualizations of adoption is sup-
ported by Choffray and Lilien (1980), who categorize research on new-product purchasing
in industrial markets into adoption research (choice) and behavior research (process).
Mohr (1982) also distinguishes between the variance (comparable to choice here) and
process approaches to organizational phenomena, and demonstrates this by taking exa-
mples from the literature on innovation adoption and diffusion. Innovation adoption has
traditionally been studied within diffusion research, and in this context it is understood as
choice. This perspective has dominated the field in that research has typically been carried
out on a large sample of organizations, focusing on correlations between groups of factors
and a specific outcome of the adoption process. The studies have identified organizatio-
nal, environmental and managerial factors that separate adopters from non-adopters, and
different variables such as the sources of information used (see e.g., Rogers 1983) and
the role of the CEO (Meyer and Goes 1988) as predictors of adoption. These models do
not have the capacity to explain how these factors evolve and interact with other factors
during the process that finally leads to adoption or rejection (see Langley and Truax 1994,
p. 620). As a process, innovation adoption is not only a means to adoption or rejection that
is interesting only as part of an aggregate-level cumulative pattern. On the contrary, it is
meaningful in itself. As Damanpour and Schneider (2006, p. 215) suggest, even though
adoption has been conceptualized as a multiphase process, most large-sample empirical
studies on organizational innovation operationalize it as a dichotomous decision between
adoption and rejection (see also Frambach and Schillewaert 2002, p. 164). A process per-
spective has been advocated by Frambach and Schillewaert (2002, p. 172), for example,
who on the evidence of their review of earlier studies argue that further research should
concentrate on “the factors influencing different pre-adoption stages within the adoption
process, rather than the adoption or non-adoption decision itself.” (see also Pennings
1987, p. 6–7; Drury and Farhoomand 1999) For further in detail discussion on the adop-
tion related terminology and definitions see Makkonen (2008).
Frambach and Schillewaert (2002) reviewed studies on organizational innovation
adoption and integrated the main findings within a sequential framework (Fig. 1). Their
model comprises the phases of awareness, consideration, intention, adoption and conti-
nued use, which are influenced by five categories of factors.
At the heart of Frambach and Schillewaert’s (2002) model is a set of relations between
the presented variable categories and their relations to the adoption decision-making pro-
cess. However the authors do not present clear arguments for all their propositions and
influence mechanisms. The more important and lucrative the perceived positive inno-
vation characteristics – relative advantage, compatibility, trialability and observability
(Rogers 1995) – and the less important and pernicious the perceived negative innovation
characteristics – complexity (Rogers 1995) and uncertainty (Venkatraman 1991) – the
more likely it is that the innovation will be adopted. Adopter characteristics have been
posited to affect the adoption decision directly. Size has a positive effect as larger com-
panies feel a greater need to improve and support their performance through innovation.
On the other hand, the organizational structure may inhibit or facilitate adoption: more
formalized and centralized organizations (usually large firms) are less likely to initiate
132 H. Makkonen

Supplier marketing Perceived innova-

targeting tion characteristics AWARENESS
communication relative advantage
risk reduction compatibility
complexity
trialability CONSIDERATION
observability
Social network uncertainty
interconnectedness
network participation INTENTION

Environment ADOPTION
network externalities
competitive pressures
Adopter
characteristics CONTINUED USE
size
structure
org. innovativeness
or strategic posture

Fig. 1: A sequential innovation adoption model (based on Frambach and Schillewaert 2002, p. 165)

adoption but are more capable of implementing innovations properly (see Damanpour
1991). What is more or less self-evident is that organizational innovativeness positively
affects adoption (e.g., Hurley and Hult 1998). The environment may have either a posi-
tive or negative influence, both directly and via perceived innovation characteristics. The
existence of external contingencies called network externalities, meaning that the benefits
of adoption increase as the cumulative number of adopters increases also has a facilitating
effect (see e.g., Katz and Shapiro 1994). Another variable in this category, competitive
pressures, has been reported to have both positive and negative effects on adoption: in the
marketing context Gatignon and Robertson (1989) reported that competition stimulated
innovation adoption. It is suggested that supplier marketing affects these perceived inno-
vation characteristics, but the mechanism remains unclear. Targeting, communication,
and risk reduction are assumed to have a positive impact on adoption via perceived inno-
vation characteristics (e.g., Robertson and Gatignon 1986), as does participation in social
networks and their interconnectedness (Zaltman, Duncan and Holbek 1973).

The research methodology

According to Burrell and Morgan (1979), social scientists are faced with four sets of
assumptions – ontological, epistemological, human-nature and methodological – which
are present more or less explicitly or implicitly in research. Along these dimensions are
two extreme approaches, the objectivist and the subjectivist. The objectivist approach
tends to focus on analyzing relationships and the regularities among the different ele-
ments they comprise. The concepts and their measurement, and the identification of the
underlying themes are central methodological issues in the search for universal laws and
patterns governing the observed reality. The subjectivist approach, on the other hand,
A Process Perspective on Organizational Innovation … 133

questions the existence of this general external reality, and instead adopts a relativis-
tic view focusing on understanding the way individuals create, modify and interpret the
world in which they find themselves. (Burrell and Morgan 1979, p. 2–3, see also Pihlanto
1994, p. 373–377; Morgan and Smircich 1980, p. 497)
This study adopts the subjectivist philosophical viewpoint. This is very natural given
the fact that the adoption of organizational innovation is mostly a collective human action
resulting from the mental exertions of the individuals participating in the process. Despite
the subjectivity of the individual informants’ stories and their composition into a coherent
description by the researcher, it is not a question of random story telling or lying. On the
contrary, the researcher as well as the informants in this context aims at as objective and
realistic a description of the process as possible. Nevertheless, this process is strongly
affected by the meanings related to it (see Morgan and Smircich 1980; Berger and Luck-
mann 1966).
The philosophical viewpoint largely determines the choice of research design and
data-collection methods (see Pihlanto 1994), as well as the nature of the research ques-
tion (Yin 2003). As one lets go of the idea of the world as a collection of permanent and
concrete structures the mainstream quantitative methods of data collection and analysis
become less appealing. Case research is one of a group of research strategies that include
experiments, surveys, archival analyses, and histories (e.g., Yin 2003, p 5; Morgan and
Smircich 1980, p. 498; Pihlanto 1994, p. 377). From this perspective the case study repre-
sents either the qualitative or the quantitative approach (e.g., Yin 2003). Given the aim of
understanding rather than causal explanation this study adopts the qualitative approach
(Stake 1995, p. 37). As a case-study method it is in line with attempts to reach a holistic
view on the process of organizational innovation adoption, which is not a well-establis-
hed research area from this perspective. The aim is to understand the whole that is more
than the sum of its parts. The focus is thus not on isolated variables, scales or dimensions,
but on the entire process. It has been suggested that a case strategy is applicable when
the aim is to grasp the dynamics of a complex unbounded research phenomenon, such
as organizational innovation adoption, in a certain chosen real-life setting. Moreover, the
case study may help the researcher to cover the contextual conditions that are believed to
be pertinent to the phenomenon in question. Hence this approach is especially suitable for
“how” and “why” types of research questions, and for scrutinizing contemporary events
over which the researcher has little or no control. (Eisenhardt 1989, p. 534; Yin 2003, p.
5–9, 13 see also Pihlanto 1994, p. 373)
Eisenhardt (1989, p. 534) classifies case research as description producing, theory tes-
ting, or theory generating. Because of the scarcity and inconsistency of earlier research on
organizational innovation adoption from the process perspective this study applies a the-
ory-generating strategy (e.g., Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007, p. 26). Generating theory
from the data means converting the real-life phenomenon into a system of more abstract
non-observable constructs and their relationships (e.g., Handfield and Melnyk 1998, p.
328). In this sense the abstract aim of “understanding” in this study could be converted
into theory generation, which is a more operational objective. Case methodology fits
perfectly with the aim of theory generation, and hence of furthering understanding. As
Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007, p. 25–26) argue, “a major reason for the popularity and
relevance of theory building from case studies is that it is one of the best (if not the best)
134 H. Makkonen

of the bridges from rich qualitative evidence to mainstream deductive research. …buil-
ding theory from cases is likely to produce theory that is accurate, interesting, and tes-
table. Thus it is a natural complement to mainstream deductive research.”
The choice of case was based on the need to understand the phenomenon of organi-
zational innovation adoption, which meant that it would serve more abstract theorizing
purposes (see Patton 1980, p. 100, Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007, p. 27). The aim of stu-
dying the chosen empirical case here is to gain knowledge that could be carefully genera-
lized to cover other similar cases. Hence it could be characterized as an instrumental case
study. (Stake 1995, p. 3–4) There was a need for intensive commitment to the adoption
process on account of the perceived newness and potential risk of the innovation. The
potential risk was related to the importance of the adoption, the complexity associated
with the innovation, and the uncertainty related to the outcome (cf. Johnston and Lewin
1996, Eight elements associated with high purchase risk). On account of these characte-
ristics so much was required in resources and efforts that the adoption became a process
rather than an instant act of choice. This study focuses on a process of organizational
innovation adoption that occurred over time. Hence the research approach is longitudinal
and retrospective (see Kimberly 1976, p. 329; Miller and Friesen 1982, p. 1013–1014;
Halinen and Törnroos 1995).
The interview was chosen as the primary data-collection method. It is especially fitting
when it is a question of a highly episodic and rare phenomenon (Eisenhardt and Graeb-
ner 2007, p. 28), as was the case in this study. The interviews were guided by themes
that were based on the research model (Fig. 1). In fact, they were guided conversations
rather than structured responses to preformed questions. They were all transcribed in
order to facilitate comprehensive analysis. In addition, some documents on evaluation of
the method were consulted, and one informant looked on her computer for old emails in
order to confirm some of the exact dates. No other secondary data were available (see e.g.,
Glueck and Willis 1979). Given the diffused nature of the adoption activities throughout
the organization, rather than relying on individual data a snowballing technique was used
to identify the key informants (see Moriarty and Bateson 1982, Johnston and Bonoma
1981). The idea was to increase reliability and reduce bias in the interview data. The
data collection for the study was motivated by the idea to interview all individuals who
had a certain role in the process in order to produce a comprehensive description of the
phenomenon. The interviewees included representatives of both the adopter company and
the supplier company, the aim being to obtain as comprehensive a view of the adoption
process as possible. (Huber and Power 1985, p. 174–178; see also Wilson 1996, p. 17)

The empirical case study

The adoption process took place during 2002–2003 at one production plant of FoodCo,
which is one of the biggest food-processing concerns in Finland. Out of respect for the
wishes of the supplier and the adopter for anonymity, in this case the adopter firm is
referred to as FoodCo and the supplier firm as TestCo. The adopted product was a micro-
biological quality-assurance system for testing the microbiological safety and purity of
final products. The system consists of a testing machine and the chemical reagents that are
A Process Perspective on Organizational Innovation … 135

Supervisory Board of the Project

two inspectors dedicated: FoodCo Central Administration Consumer
the manager of another FoodCo plant Head of Production Market
the FoodCo Concern Development
Manager

FoodCo Production Plant

FoodCo’s Main Competitor Factory Manager
(the same method in use)
Quality Development
Project Group
Manager
Production Manager (Project Manager)
Quality Development Manager
TestCo’s Competitor Laboratory Assistant
supplying another type
of technology
FoodCo Central Laboratory
(Part of the Project Group)
TestCo (Technology Agent) Microbiologist (male)
CEO Microbiologist (female)
Laboratory Assistant

Academic Journals Internet Supervising authorities

Technology
Manufacturer
(Principal Firm)

Fig. 2: The actors and their relations in the adoption process

needed to perform the tests. The only supplier of these reagents in Finland is TestCo. This
continuous need for reagents and for the maintenance and servicing of the machine meant
that interaction between TestCo and FoodCo continued after the adoption process.
The data consists of 10 interviews that were conducted between 27th September 2005
and 18th April 2007. The total number of informants was eight. Five of them comprised
the project group at FoodCo and the sixth was the CEO of TestCo, the one who sold
the method and carried out the project with FoodCo (see Fig. 2): these interviews were
held between 27th September and 17th March 2006. The other two informants were the
head of production from the central administration and the factory manager. They were
interviewed later (13th and 18th April 2007) because their involvement in the project came
out during a discussion with the production manager, who was the contact person in this
research, concerning the confirmation of the analysis. The role of these two additional
interviews was mostly confirmatory, supporting and strengthening the received view, as
the individuals were not directly engaged in the project on a concrete level. The shaded
boxes represent the internal parts of FoodCo and the arrows represent the different links
between these actors in the project.
Two members of the project group at FoodCo were specialized in microbiology and
worked at the central R&D laboratory of the concern. Both of them were interviewed
twice by telephone. The other three members of the group worked at the production
plant. The laboratory assistant, who did all the practical testing, and the project manager
were interviewed together at the plant. The third person, who worked as quality-develop-
ment manager, was interviewed by telephone as he had left the organization. The CEO
136 H. Makkonen

of TestCo was interviewed twice face-to-face, and the factory manager and the head of
production were interviewed by telephone. The role in the project of TestCo’s laboratory
assistant was very minor: she demonstrated the method in practice in a couple of the first
meetings at which the CEO was present and had the main role. She left TestCo during
the project and could not be reached for interview purposes. The other people involved
in the project (the quality-development manager of FoodCo’s main competitor and two
inspectors) had very minor roles and were not interviewed.

An outline of the adoption process

The project in question represented half of a bigger project aimed at developing the pro-
duction plant’s microbiological analytic procedures. The part under scrutiny here inclu-
ded a concrete investment, and specifically the point at which a firm was searching for a
solution to cut down the storage time required due to microbiological quality assurance
rather than having to construct new storage facilities. It was known that production at this
plant would increase due to the concern-level decision at FoodCo to shut down its other
special plant and concentrate all of this type of production on the site under scrutiny.
The plant needed to find a solution enabling it to adapt to an increase in production. The
microbiological analytics of the final products, which was part of the quality-assurance
process, was a particular bottleneck in this new situation.
The managers at the production plant had been aware of the faster methods available
for analyzing microbiological quality since 2000, mainly due to the efforts of active pro-
viders who had approached them. However, before this shut-down decision these methods
were not considered seriously even though it might have been beneficial to invest in them.
The anticipated increase in production made the factory more willing to respond when
the TestCo CEO contacted the production manager, and a meeting was set for autumn
2001. The method seemed promising from the very beginning, and the potential benefits
sounded lucrative. After some weeks of preliminary investigation they agreed to start
more serious testing that required the formal establishment of a project. The production
manager made a project plan, which named him as project manager, and specified the
aims of the project, the personnel, the supervisory board and the schedule. The project
outline partly reflected the requirements for internal technology development, and the
project was duly specified according the firm’s ISO 9001 quality system. The plan was
submitted to the FoodCo central administration, and a license to start the project was
granted (see Fig. 3).
Both microbiologists had been familiar with the technology platform since the late
1970s. The central laboratory had tested another application of this technology at the
beginning of the 1980s for another purpose, but the results then were not satisfactory.
Since then it had not tested any solutions based on the technology, and at first they were
doubtful about it. One of them (the male) said that at the beginning of the project he used
to voice his suspicions thus: “Are we going to try another long-drawn-out, promising new
method?”
Following the establishment of the project at FoodCo in March 2002 TestCo entered
into a testing period in order to adapt and fine-tune the method for the products to be
tested at the production plant (see Fig. 3). During this period FoodCo sent their products
A Process Perspective on Organizational Innovation … 137

Pre-adoption Adoption Post-adoption

Phase Phase Phase

Testing phase at Supplier

TestCo’s demonstrates The method has
Supervisory board been applied
laboratory for the method at
reviews and accepts and considered
FoodCo’s the central
Awareness of the project for some of the
products R&D
these faster laboratory other products
methods within the plant
Investment

Anticipated -
increase in Supplier April 2003
meets the Testing Submission of The method
production due
production phase at investment replaces the
to a central
manager at the plant proposal to the old one in
administration
the plant central testing certain
shutdown decision
March 2002 administration products
Establishment
of the project

Fig. 3: The main incidents in the process

to be analyzed, and at the same time investigated other possibilities and suppliers. Ano-
ther supplier whose product was based on a different technology platform was given
preliminary consideration, but this was not followed up due to the high price and lack of
references. Following adjustment of the TestCo method to FoodCo’s products the testing
period started at the production plant in August 2002. At first TestCo had to assure the
microbiologists that it was worthwhile to engage in a deeper testing phase. Consequently,
its representatives visited the central laboratory in September 2002, performed a set of
tests to demonstrate the method, and obtained the microbiologists’ blessing to continue.
For the purpose of comparison the new method was run in parallel with the old one
until January 2003. The number of tests, which was as high as 10,000, was sufficient for
statistical analysis. At the end of the testing period it seemed that the method was specific
and sensitive enough to suit the purpose. The results were then presented to the super-
visory board of the project, which was responsible for ensuring that the formal internal
guidelines were followed and that the results were satisfactory. The supervisory board
accepted the results, and the production plant could then make an investment proposal
to the FoodCo central administration. This was approved, and the machine that had thus
far been leased was bought in April 2003 and put into use for analyzing some product
groups without backup. The older method is still currently being used to analyze contract
manufacturing products and products for children due to the lack of experience with the
new method given the short amount of time it has been in use.
138 H. Makkonen

The roles of the different actors during the process

The project group at the production plant was at the heart of this process (see Fig. 2).
Because the project was conceived at the plant in order to meet the need to adapt to an
increase in production the group was highly motivated to avoid constructing a new sto-
rage facility and to exploit the potential benefits of the quicker analytical methods. The
project manager and the quality-development manager worked on the project at the same
time as carrying out other responsibilities, but the laboratory assistant was assigned to it
on a full-time basis. The quality-development manager made calculations comparing the
TestCo method with the one currently in use and the rapid analysis provided by the other
supplier. He was also the main contact with TestCo. The project manager had established
the project and was a communication link to the microbiologists on more general project-
related issues. The laboratory assistant did the practical testing, and in this context was in
contact with the other (female) microbiologist.
The microbiologists acquired and refined information facilitating the evaluation of the
method and the adoption process. They brought in the necessary expertise to arrange the
testing and implementation procedures so as to ensure that they complied with the res-
trictions imposed by the authorities, and interpreted the test results. Their role was also
crucial in the final examination by the supervisory board in terms of giving credence to
the project. The microbiologists were interested in the method as well as in the success
of the project because they wanted to find out whether it could be used elsewhere within
the FoodCo concern.
TestCo took on not only the traditional role of seller, but also co-operative and expert
roles. It contributed to the validation and implementation in terms of sharing its expertise
and experiences gained earlier with other customers, and also through its own use of the
method in its laboratory to produce commercial laboratory-testing services. The CEO was
the key person with various roles in this case: TestCo is quite a small firm. Nevertheless,
members of the laboratory staff were involved in the practical testing and user training.
TestCo gave training in the use of the machine, installed it, and supplied the necessary
chemicals.

Sources of information

The microbiologists were the main communication links in terms of obtaining information
about different methods used outside of the firm. Their main channels included the acade-
mic community (journal articles on the method), FoodCo’s main competitor, TestCo, and
the other technology supplier whose product was under consideration (see Fig. 2).
The method was not validated by any specific validation organization, but was widely
used for similar purposes around Europe. According to EU principles this whole range of
references legitimized its use, but implementation validation was still necessary in order
to give assurance internally that the method was reliable, and also to find out how to use
it. The other function of the references in addition to ensuring the approval of the govern-
mental bodies was to demonstrate to FoodCo that it seemed promising and worthwhile
to look into it more carefully. According to the male microbiologist, a pre-condition for
seriously considering a new method is its validation by an official body, or then it has to
A Process Perspective on Organizational Innovation … 139

have been used for the same purpose by other trustworthy companies. Even before the
project started the R&D laboratory knew from the information the suppliers provided
and from relevant articles in international academic journals that these methods had been
developed further since they last tried them. This information gave the impression that
the method might work, or at least was worth testing. Given the lack of references and the
much higher price it was felt that the other supplier was not worth considering.
The female microbiologist consulted FoodCo’s main competitor in this area. She knew
the quality-development manager there and contacted him during the testing process at
the production plant. She said it was mostly out of curiosity and as some kind of con-
firmation, but she also obtained some of their testing results. The male microbiologist
considered this also to be important in the sense that the authorities had already accepted
this testing method in Finland for the same purpose, and this facilitated the validation
process at FoodCo.

The benefits of the adoption

After implementation the production plant was able to cut down its microbiological qua-
lity-assurance storage time from five or six days to three days for the products analyzed
according to this method. This tremendous saving of time spared the plant from construc-
ting new storage facilities and recruiting new personnel, and cut down its storage costs.
It also improved the delivery reliability because the time between reacting and starting
replacement production is shorter if problems arise. The new method is less labor-inten-
sive, and also reduces the amount of work at the quality-assurance laboratory.
These benefits were clearly recognized at the beginning of the project, which made it
very attractive. Nevertheless, it was still necessary to have an in-depth testing period in
order to ensure that there was no trade-off between the level of quality and the benefits
gained. The method was considered an important tool in terms of ensuring that the pro-
duction plant met the set goals. It was a totally different analytical method.

Matching the theory and the empirical part

The following model (Fig. 4) is a revised version of the model developed by Frambach
and Schillewaert (2002, p. 165) (see Fig. 1 in this study). The phases during the pre-adop-
tion stage were renamed Awareness & pre-consideration and Time gap, those that formed
the adoption stage Intention, Reconsideration & Implementation and Adoption choice,
and those in the post-adoption stage Normal use and Confirmation. This final stage was
still ongoing at the time of the data gathering because the method had not yet been applied
to all of the products due to a lack of use experiences. The arrows between Normal use
and Confirmation indicate that confirmation happens through normal use: if FoodCo has
more positive experiences of using the method it becomes more strongly confirmed. One
difference from Frambach and Schillewaert’s model (2002, p. 165) is that the proposed
links between the factor categories do not take the form of arrows, but are rather discus-
sed in the text.
140 H. Makkonen

Supplier Interaction Perceived innovation

targeting characteristics
AWARENESS relative advantage
communication &
risk reduction compatibility
PRECONSIDERATION complexity
co-operator & seller
trialability
observability
Social network TIME GAP uncertainty
network participation
interconnectedness
co-operation
INTENTION Environment
risk reduction
network externalities
competitive pressures
Adopter
characteristics RECONSIDERATION
size &
structure IMPLEMENTATION
Competitive
org. innovativeness or
technology supplier
strategic posture
ADOPTION interaction
CHOICE
Secondary adoption
activities forming the
context and shaping NORMAL USE
the adoption process

CONFIRMATION

Fig. 4:  The revised model of the case firm’s adoption process

The interaction between the supplier and the adopter was fairly continuous during the
adoption process. TestCo had a substantial role in advancing awareness and pre-conside-
ration of this adopted innovation in its marketing of the method. This happened before
this acute phase because TestCo had actively taken part in different kinds of exhibitions
and had built up knowledge of its products through different channels. It targeted FoodCo
at the beginning of the process and demonstrated the method. During the reconsideration
& implementation stage it co-operated closely with FoodCo in order to adjust and fine-
tune the method to meet its needs. In addition to assuming this co-operator role TestCo
also had the role of seller. It was therefore unable to attend FoodCo’s internal meetings
concerning this project, and was not fully aware of all matters concerning the adoption
choice and the factors affecting it. The characterizing feature of the interaction between
TestCo and FoodCo was risk reduction. Thus the method was a fairly ready solution,
except for the need for fine-tuning, and the main objective behind the project was to con-
firm the reliability of the method and its applicability to the targeted task.
The role of the social network at the very beginning of the process was to advance
general awareness of these faster methods, but its main contribution was during the recon-
sideration & implementation phase. FoodCo’s main competitor was an actor from its
social network, and the female microbiologist knew the quality-development manager in
question. Both of these firms were part of an informal network consisting of key players
in this industry in the Nordic countries, which held seminars once or twice a year. Hence
A Process Perspective on Organizational Innovation … 141

the network interconnectedness was quite solid. The competitor had acquired exactly the
same method from TestCo earlier, and had experience of it. It was also included in the list
of references TestCo had given to FoodCo. However TestCo was not aware that FoodCo
had consulted the competitor in this case. The reason for doing so was to minimize the
risk associated with the method.
As a large firm in the Finnish context FoodCo is bombarded by suppliers, and thus has
a good level of general awareness of the options available in the markets. It is a centrally
led organization, and its structure affected the shape of the adoption process due to the
need to follow a certain protocol. The references had a crucial role in convincing the
company that it was worth taking a closer look at this method and testing it. All of the pro-
ject-group members said that the idea of considering a product that was totally new and
without references was not very tempting. According to the project manager, the general
problem was the abundance of promising methods and potential projects and the difficu-
lty of effectively screening out the most promising ones. The reference list in this case
facilitated this screening process, thereby evoking trustworthiness and reducing risk. As
TestCo’s CEO put it: “I think that in this case, and especially in the beginning to convince
the microbiologists, the role of the international references was crucial: without them this
could easily have been a dead end.” Thus it is clear that FoodCo’s innovativeness was not
a powerful driving force in this case.
The innovation characteristics were evaluated throughout the process. In this case the
method was not very costly, but its role was very important. It had a relative advantage
over the previous one if it worked properly. The saving of time was evident, but it was
still under scrutiny because FoodCo was not yet fully convinced that there was not a
tradeoff between the saving of time and the analytical quality. The method is not inserted
into a certain system but operates individually, and compatibility here refers to mental
rather than technical compatibility. The perceived relative advantage at the beginning
was enough to change the suspicious attitudes, and in this sense ease the mental incom-
patibility. This was facilitated by its ease of use (low complexity) and trialability. TestCo
demonstrated the method and its benefits, which together with the list of references made
them observable. Uncertainty remains, but the other perceived innovation attributes have
reduced it.
Competitive pressures affected the adoption process during the various stages. Such
pressures constantly stimulate FoodCo to improve its performance, and it is therefore
open to new ideas and is willing to consider other market options. For the same reason it
screened the method offered by a competitive technology supplier during the re-conside-
ration & implementation phase. The implication of this openness is that the newly adopted
method could be replaced by a novel solution in the near future, and hence competitive
pressures affect the confirmation stage as well. The fact that the method was already used
in Finland by a competitor and that the authorities had approved it for this use facilitated
adoption (called network externalities in the model) and eased the re-consideration &
implementation phase.
142 H. Makkonen

An activity-based perspective as a result of the study

The innovation-adoption approach takes as its theoretical point of departure an inno-

vation that initiates a certain pattern of behavior that finally leads to adoption. Howe-
ver, neither the original stimulus-reaction pattern of behavior underlying the adoption
indicating that it is more or less a matter of time before a new innovation is adopted (or
rejected) nor the linear path to this adoption decision is so straightforward. For this reason
a further category was added to the model (Fig. 4), called secondary adoption activities,
which forms the context and shapes the adoption process. The process characterized as
temporary decision-making in Fig. 4 describes quite a limited and false combination of
activities that were relevant to the adoption result because this model focuses heavily on
innovations that are finally adopted. This kind of presentation describing the phenomenon
as decision-making concerning the final choice of innovation and the factors affecting
that process can give only a limited understanding of the interplay between the different
activities and contexts resulting in adoption. It is therefore suggested that an activity-
based perspective incorporating primary and secondary adoption activities would give a
better understanding of the problem-solving behavior of an adopter company during the
process that leads to innovation adoption than this very restricted view. Primary adoption
activities are temporary activities or sets of activities that are performed to solve a current
organizational problem. Hence, in addition to activities related to the adoption of a certain
innovation they also include the rejection of the other options considered during the pro-
blem-solving process. Secondary adoption activities are not directly attached to problem
solving, but affect it indirectly by exerting a facilitating or inhibiting influence. This view
accentuates the embeddedness of the adoption process in a wider problem-solving pro-
cess that includes rejection and the structural dynamics arising from the continuous inter-
action between the adoption process and the other elements and activities of the adopter’s
past and present business operations and future visions (see Fig. 5).
The interplay between the different activities shaped the process and generated various
kinds of dynamics. Both the central R&D laboratory and the production plant had been
aware of these faster methods for analyzing microbiological quality, but the concrete star-
ting point for the project was the production redesign on the FoodCo-concern level, and
the simultaneous active marketing by TestCo. In this sense the interplay and the random-
ness resulting from it is emphasized over a linear process with a clear defined beginning
and end. Although the benefits were known before the redesign decision, the adoption
was not considered seriously even though it would have brought benefits in terms of time
and labor saving in any case, even without an increase in production. Another example of
the interplay between the primary and secondary adoption activities was the social inter-
action and power hierarchy that characterized the process. Because FoodCo is a centrally
administrated concern the adoption process at the production plant strictly followed the
formal procedures for that kind of project. The guidelines for different types of projects
are defined in FoodCo’s certificated ISO 9001 quality-management system. The power
relationships were evident particularly in the role of the central R&D laboratory, which
had the power to kill the project before the testing phase if it seemed to lack promise.
In this sense the microbiologists were approvers of technology here, possessing a lot of
potential power that they did not exercise in full. Moreover, the need to establish the pro-
A Process Perspective on Organizational Innovation … 143

Major project aiming to develop

microbiological analysis methods

The studied sub-project

aiming to meet the need Another
to reduce analysis time sub-project

Secondary adoption Primary adoption

activities activities

A R
PRIOR D E
Concern-level O J
shut-down decision P E
T C
PRESENT I T
ISO 9001 O I
Power hierarchy N O
N
FUTURE P
Future expectations R P
concerning wider O R
use C O
E C
S E
S S
S

Fig. 5: The adoption process embedded in wider organizational activity

ject formally, to specify the details in the plan and name a supervisory board, and to make
a formal proposal for the final investment to the central administration represented certain
power structures that shaped the process. FoodCo also considered another option offered
by another technology supplier. Thus the process was more about finding a solution to a
problem rather than deciding on this specific and eventually chosen product. Or, as the
male the microbiologist said: “If it had not worked the ongoing search process would
have continued.” A more relevant starting point than this innovation centricity, which
focuses on a particular innovation and the path to its adoption, could be an organizatio-
nal need or a problem to be solved: one could easily imagine a situation in which a firm
considers different options and ends up adopting only one of them, as happened in this
case. Thus alongside one adoption process may be one or more rejection processes. The
microbiologists dedicated time to the project partly because of the prospect of adopting
144 H. Makkonen

the testing method more widely within the concern. Without this interest their contribu-
tion might have been smaller.
Further to the above criticisms it could be said that the innovation adoption approach
falls short of recognizing the intra-firm network in this adoption process. Different actors
(central administration, the supervisory board, the production plant and the central R&D
laboratory) did have access to each other’s resources via different activities. Although the
production plant was eager to consider the method in more detail, its limited resources
(no microbiologists worked there) prevented it from progressing to the reconsideration
& implementation stage without the support of the R&D laboratory. The microbiologists’
expertise was needed for arranging the testing and implementation procedures to make
sure that they complied with the restrictions set by the authorities, and for interpreting the
results. The central administration controlled the financial resources, and had empowered
the supervisory board to control the adoption process as an independent and unbiased
committee. The supervisory board had surveillance resources and the power to affect
the process. This multi-person decision-making feature related to complex organizatio-
nal acquisition decisions and processes has been discussed in the context of research on
organizational buying behavior. In my view, research attempts to cross-fertilize these two
fields of innovation adoption and organizational buying behavior would pay handsome
results. As far as I know only David T. Wilson (1987) has explicitly considered these two
fields as one, but without a noticeable impact.

References

Becker S. W. and Whisler T. L. (1967): The Innovative Organization: A Selective View of Current
Theory and Research. The Journal of Business, 40(4), pp. 462–469.
Berger P. and Luckman T. (1966): The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology
of Knowledge. Anchor Books, Garden City, NY.
Burrell G. and Morgan G. (1979): Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Elements of
the sociology of corporate life. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Choffray J-M. and Lilien G. L. (1980): Market Planning for New Industrial Products. John Wiley,
New York.
Damanpour F. (1991): Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp. 555–590.
Damanpour F. and Scneider M. (2006): Phases of the Adoption of Innovation in Organizations:
Effects of Environment, Organization and Top Managers. British Journal of Management,
17(3), pp. 215–236.
Drury D. H. and Farhoomand A. (1999): Innovation Diffusion and Implementation. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 3(2), pp. 133–157.
Eisenhardt K. M. (1989): Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), pp. 532–550.
Eisenhardt K. M. and Graebner M. E. (2007): Theory building from cases: opportunities and chal-
lenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), pp. 25–32.
Frambach R. T. and Schillewaert N. (2002): Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level fra-
mework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research,
55(2), pp. 163–176.
Gatignon H. and Robertson T. S. (1989): Technology diffusion: an empirical test of competitive
effects. Journal of Marketing, 53(1), pp. 35–49.
A Process Perspective on Organizational Innovation … 145

Glueck W. F. and Willis R. (1979): Documentary sources and strategic management research. The
Academy of Management Review, 4(1), pp. 95–102.
Halinen A. and Törnroos J-Å (1995): The meaning of time in the study of industrial buyer-seller
relationships. in: Möller K. and Wilson D. (eds) Business marketing: an interaction and net-
work perspective, Kluwer, Boston, MA, pp. 493–530.
Handfield R. B. and Melnyk S. A. (1998): The scientific theory-building process: a primer using the
case of TQM. Journal of Operations Management, 16, pp. 321–339.
Huber G. P. and Power D. J. (1985): Research notes and communications. Retrospective reports
of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management
Journal, 6, pp. 171–180.
Hurley R. F. and Hult T. G. (1998): Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an
integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, pp. 42–54.
Johnston W. J. and Bonoma T. V. (1981): The Buying Center: Structure and Interaction Patterns.
Journal of Marketing, 45(3), pp. 143–156.
Katz M. and Shapiro C. (1994): Systems competition and network effects. Journal of Economics
Perspective, 8, pp. 93–115.
Kimberly J. R. (1976): Issues in the design of longitudinal organizational research. Sociological
Methods and Research, 4(3), pp. 321–347.
Klein K. J. and Sorra J. S. (1996): The Challenge of Innovation Implementation. The Academy of
Management Review, 21(4), pp. 1055–1080.
Klein K. J., Conn A. B. and Sorra J. S. (2001): Implementing Computerized Technology: An Orga-
nizational Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), pp. 811–824.
Kriger M. P. and Barnes L. B. (1992): Organizational decision-making as hierarchical levels of
drama. Journal of Management Studies, 29(4), pp. 439–457.
Langley A. and Truax J. (1994): A Process Study of New Technology Adoption in Smaller Manu-
facturing Firms. Journal of Management Studies, 31(5), pp. 619–652.
Makkonen H. (2008): Beyond Organizational Innovation Adoption. A Conceptual and Empirical
Analysis. Journal of Business Market Management, 2(2), pp. 63–77.
Meyer A. D. and Goes J. B. (1988): Organizational Assimilation of Innovations: A Multilevel Con-
textual Analysis”. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), pp. 897–923.
Miller D. and Friesen P. H. (1982): The longitudinal analysis of organizations: A methodological
perspective. Management Science, 28(9), pp. 1013–1034.
Mohr L. B. (1982): Explaining Organizational Behavior, The Limits and possibilities of Theory and
Research. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.
Morgan G. and Smircich L. (1980): The case for qualitative research. The Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 5(4), pp. 491–500.
Moriarty R. T. and Bateson J. E. G. (1982): Exploring complex decision making units: A new
approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(2), pp. 182–191.
Ozanne U. B. and Churchill G. A. Jr. (1971): Five Dimensions of the Industrial Adoption Process.
Journal of Marketing Research, 8(3), pp. 322–328.
Patton M. Q. (1980): Qualitative evaluation methods. Sage, Newbury Park.
Pennings J. M. (1987): Technological innovation in manufacturing. in: Pennings J. M. and Bui-
tendam A. (Eds) New Technology as Organizational Innovation, Ballinger, Cambridge,
pp. 197–216.
Pihlanto P. (1994): The action-oriented approach and case study method in management studies.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 10(4), pp. 369–382.
Robertson T. and Gatignon H. (1986): Competitive Effects on Technology Diffusion. Journal of
Marketing, 50(1), pp. 1–12.
Rogers E. M. (1962): Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York.
Rogers E. M. (1983): Diffusion of Innovations. (3rd ed) Free Press, New York.
Rogers E. M. (1995): Diffusion of Innovations. (4th ed) Free Press, New York.
146 H. Makkonen

Sheth J. N. (1973): A Model of Industrial Buyer Behavior. Journal of Marketing, 37(4), pp. 50–56.
Stake R. E. (1995): The art of case study research. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Venkatraman M. P. (1991): The impact of innovativeness and innovation type on adoption. Journal
of Retailing, 67, pp. 51–67.
Webster F. and Wind Y. (1972): Organizational Buying Behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Wilson D. T. (1987): Merging adoption process and organizational buying models. Advances in
Consumer Research, 14(1), pp. 323–325.
Wilson E. J. (1996): Theory transitions in organizational buying behavior research. The Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, 11(6), pp. 7–19.
Woodside A. G. and Biemans W. G. (2005): Modeling innovation, manufacturing, diffusion
and adoption/rejection processes. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 20(7),
pp. 380–393.
Yin R. K. (2003): Case study research. Design and Methods. 3rd edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Zaltman G., Duncan R. and Holbek J. (1973): Innovations and organizations. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.