اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات38
تعداد شماره‌ها1,240
تعداد مقالات8,994
تعداد مشاهده مقاله7,845,140
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله4,706,726
نصراله زاده, مهدی, رجب‌زاده, حامد, قدک, فرهاد. (1397). بررسی میزان موفقیت در اجرای مدیریت دانش به‌عنوان نوآوری. پدافند الکترونیکی و سایبری, 1(2), 137-186.
مهدی نصراله زاده; حامد رجب‌زاده; فرهاد قدک. "بررسی میزان موفقیت در اجرای مدیریت دانش به‌عنوان نوآوری". پدافند الکترونیکی و سایبری, 1, 2, 1397, 137-186.
نصراله زاده, مهدی, رجب‌زاده, حامد, قدک, فرهاد. (1397). 'بررسی میزان موفقیت در اجرای مدیریت دانش به‌عنوان نوآوری', پدافند الکترونیکی و سایبری, 1(2), pp. 137-186.
نصراله زاده, مهدی, رجب‌زاده, حامد, قدک, فرهاد. بررسی میزان موفقیت در اجرای مدیریت دانش به‌عنوان نوآوری. پدافند الکترونیکی و سایبری, 1397; 1(2): 137-186.

بررسی میزان موفقیت در اجرای مدیریت دانش به‌عنوان نوآوری

مدیریت راهبردی دانش سازمانی
مقاله 5، دوره 1، شماره 2، آذر 1397، صفحه 137-186    اصل مقاله (1.22 M)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی با اصالت
نویسندگان
مهدی نصراله زاده1؛ حامد رجب‌زاده* 2؛ فرهاد قدک3
1پژوهشگر،دانشگاه جامع امام حسین(ع)، تهران، ایران.
2دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد مهندسی صنایع، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران
3دانشیار، دانشکده فنی و مهندسی، دانشگاه جامع امام حسین(ع)، تهران، ایران.
تاریخ دریافت: 10 مهر 1397،  تاریخ بازنگری: 02 بهمن 1397،  تاریخ پذیرش: 10 آذر 1397 
چکیده
مسئله مورد بررسی پژوهش بررسی میزان موفقیت در اجرای  مدیریت دانش به‌عنوان نوآوری با در نظر گرفتن چهار عامل تأثیرگذار در اجرای نوآوری (عوامل فردی، عوامل اجتماعی، ویژگیهای نوآوری و عوامل سازمانی) است. سؤال اصلی این است که آیا بین عوامل مؤثر در اجرای نوآوری  و موفقیت این مؤسسه در اجرای مدیریت دانش به‌عنوان نوآوری رابطه معنی‌دار وجود دارد. جامعه آماری 15 نفری پژوهش را مدیران این مؤسسه تشکیل می‌دهند که از مدیریت دانش بیشترین استفاده را می­کنند. نتایج با استفاده از ضریب همبستگی پیرسون تجزیه‌وتحلیل شد؛ سپس فرضیات معنادار با آزمون رگرسیون مورد تجزیه‌وتحلیل قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که عوامل فردی با ضریب همبستگی (817/0)، ویژگیهای نوآوری با ضریب همبستگی (66/0) و عوامل اجتماعی با ضریب همبستگی (588/0) با موفقیت در اجرای مدیریت دانش رابطه معناداری دارد و به‌رغم همبستگی ضعیف (404/0) و نبود رابطه معنادار بین عامل سازمانی با موفقیت در اجرای مدیریت دانش، نتیجه نشان داد که  مدیریت دانش  از دید همه عوامل یادشده با ضریب همبستگی (819/0) با موفقیت در این مؤسسه اجرا شده است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
نوآوری؛ مدیریت دانش؛ تحقیقات صنعتی دفاعی؛ اجرا؛ تصمیم گیری
عنوان مقاله [English]
An Appraisal of the Success Rate of Implementing Knowledge Management as an Innovation
نویسندگان [English]
Mahdi Nasrollahzadeh1؛ Hamed Rajabzadeh2؛ Frahad Ghadak3
1Researcher, Imam Hossein University, Tehran, Iran.
2Master's degree student of Industrial Engineering, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
3Associate Professor, Depatment of Engineering , Imam Hossein University , Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]
Taking into account four factors influencing the practice of innovations including individual factors, social factors, innovation features and organizational factors, this research is aimed at assessing the success rate of implementation of knowledge management as an innovation in a defense research decision making institution. This research mainly involves the question of whether there is a significant relationship between the effective factors of implementing innovation and the success of this institution in implementing knowledge management as an innovation. The statistical population of this study includes 15 managers of the institution who mostly apply knowledge management .The results were analyzed through Pearson Correlation Coefficient. The significant hypotheses were then analyzed by regression test. The results indicated that individual factors, innovation features, and social factors with correlation coefficients equal to 0.817, 0.66, and 0.588 respectively, were significantly related to successful implementation of knowledge management. Despite the weak correlation coefficient of 0.404 and lack of a meaningful relationship between the organizational factor and the success of the implementation of knowledge management, overall correlation coefficient of 0.819 generally showed that knowledge management has been successfully implemented in terms of all the related factors.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
innovation, knowledge management, defense industrial researches, implementation, decision making
مراجع
  • امیری، ی.، قاسمی، ف. (1388). توسعه مدل بهینه فرهنگ نوآوری و مزایای حاصل از پیاده­سازی آن. دومین کنفرانس ملی خلاقیت شناسی، TRIZ و مهندسی و مدیریت نوآوری ایران.
  • رمضانی، ق.، سلیمی، ج. (2016). شناسایی مؤلفه­های مدیریت دانش و وضعیت پیاده­سازی آنها (مطالعه موردی: دانشگاه کردستان). فصلنامه مطالعات دانش شناسی. 2(5): 1-24.
  • صادقی، ع.، صادقی مال امیری، م. (2016). الگوی عوامل سیستمی مؤثر بر توسعه نوآوری مبتنی بر اندیشه‌های مقام معظم رهبری. پژوهش‌های مدیریت منابع انسانی، 8 (2): 137-159.
  • صلواتی، ح. ا. ع. (1385). مدیریت دانش در سازمان. تهران: پیوندنو.
  • عطوفی‌نجف‌آبادی، م.، بنی‌هاشمی، س. ع. (1392). ارائۀ مدل استقرار مدیریت دانش در صنایع کشور بر اساس فاکتورهای زمینه‌ای. مدیریت دولتی(دانشگاه تهران). 14(5): 55-72.
  • کمالی زنوزی، م.، کمالی زنوزی، س. (1396). بررسی اثر تفکر استراتژیک و نوآوری سازمانی بر مزیت رقابتی ـ مطالعه موردی: شرکت ایران خودرو. دومین همایش بین المللی انسجام مدیریت و اقتصاد در توسعه.
  • هرج حسن آبادی، ف.، مظفری، م. م. (1396). ضرورت پیاده­سازی مدیریت دانش در سازمانها و نقش آن در کسب مزیت رقابتی. اولین کنفرانس ملی مطالعات نوین مدیریت در ایران.
  •  هوشیاری. (1395). پیاده‌سازی جریان پایدار نوآوری در سازمان (نوآورسازی سازمان). 
  • واحدیان، ع. (1382). نوآوری چیست؟. چهارمین همایش مراکز تحقیق و توسعه صنایع و معادن.
  • Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS quarterly, 665-694.
  • Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision sciences, 28(3), 557-582.
  • Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision sciences, 30(2), 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(2), 421-430.
  • Allameh, M. (2015). The effect of intellectual capital with moderate role knowledge management and cultural capital on organizational performance in Isfahan Gaz Company. Accounting Management.
  • Arnold, D. E. (1996). The role of HRD in the successful implementation of information systems. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(3), 271-278.
  • 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(2), 119-129.
  • Bachnik, K. (2011). Knowledge management in the light of breakthrough information–communication technologies and the accompanying social trends. Poskrobko, B.(Ed.), Sustainable economy based on knowledge, 297-309.
  • Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 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(1), 45-68.
  • Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2015). Adaptation to information technology: A holistic nomological network from implementation to job outcomes. Management science, 62(1), 156-179.
  • Barlow, J., Bayer, S., & Curry, R. (2006). Implementing complex innovations in fluid multi-stakeholder environments: experiences of ‘telecare’. Technovation, 26(3), 396-406.
  • Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2010). The other side of acceptance: studying the direct and indirect effects of emotions on information technology use. MIS quarterly, 689-710.
  • Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California management review, 50(1), 25-56.
  • Birken, S. A., Lee, S.-Y. D., & Weiner, B. J. (2012). Uncovering middle managers' role in healthcare innovation implementation. Implementation Science, 7(1), 28.
  • 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(5), 472-491.
  • Brown, T. (2009). Change by design : how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
  • Butler, R., Price, D., Coates, P., & Pike, R. (1998). Organizing for innovation: loose or tight control? Long Range Planning, 31(5), 775-782.
  • Carayannis, E. G., & Turner, E. (2006). Innovation diffusion and technology acceptance: The case of PKI technology. Technovation, 26(7), 847-855.
  • 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(4), 191-229.
  • 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(1), 245.
  • Choi, J. N., & Moon, W. J. (2013). Multiple forms of innovation implementation: The role of innovation, individuals, and the implementation context. Organizational Dynamics, 42(4), 290-297.
  • 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(1), 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(4), 663-680.
  • 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(2), 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(6), 740-751.
  • Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS quarterly, 189-211.
  • Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (1998). Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: the role of environmental change. Journal of Engineering and technology management, 15(1), 1-24.
  • Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British journal of Management, 17(3), 215-236.
  • Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know: Harvard Business Press.
  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 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(8), 982-1003.
  • de Oliveira, L. S., Echeveste, M. E. S., Cortimiglia, M. N., & Gonçalves, C. G. C. (2017). Analysis of determinants for Open Innovation implementation in Regional Innovation Systems. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 14(2), 119-129.
  • Dictionary, C. (2011). "Knowledge" in Cambridge Advanced. Learner's Dictionary &Thesaurus.
  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2000). The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields Economics meets sociology in strategic management (pp. 143-166): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  • 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(2), 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(3-4), 327-350.
  • Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 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(4), 201-212.
  • 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(2), 168-185.
  • 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(2), 163-176.
  • Gill, T. G. (1996). Expert systems usage: task change and intrinsic motivation. MIS quarterly, 301-329.
  • Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS quarterly, 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.
  • Griffith, T. L. (1999). Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management review, 24(3), 472-488.
  • Hall, R., & Andriani, P. (2003). Managing knowledge associated with innovation. Journal of Business Research, 56(2), 145-152.
  • Hausman, A., & Stock, J. R. (2003). Adoption and implementation of technological innovations within long-term relationships. Journal of Business Research, 56(8), 681-686.
  • Higgins, M. C., Weiner, J., & Young, L. (2012). Implementation teams: A new lever for organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 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(1), 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, 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(2), 91-112.
  • Ibrahim, A. R., Zolait, A. H. S., Subramanian, S., & Ashtiani, A. V. (2009). Organizational innovative capabilities: An empirical study of Malaysian firms. Journal of Innovation and business best Practices, 1(2), 9-18.
  • Ismail, M. B., & Yusof, Z. M. (2010). The impact of individual factors on knowledge sharing quality. Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, 13, 1-12.
  • Jacobs, S. R., Weiner, B. J., & Bunger, A. C. (2014). Context matters: measuring implementation climate among individuals and groups. Implementation Science, 9(1), 46.
  • 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(2), 129-145.
  • Jelenic, D. (2011). The importance of knowledge management in Organizations–with emphasis on the balanced scorecard learning and growth Perspective. Paper presented at the Management, Knowledge and Learning, International Conference.
  • Jones, G., & Sallis, E. (2013). Knowledge management in education: Enhancing learning & education: Routledge.
  • 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(2), 361-386.
  • 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, 183-213.
  • Kim, H.-W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2009). Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS quarterly, 567-582.
  • Kim, J. S., & Chung, G. H. (2017). Implementing innovations within organizations: a systematic review and research agenda. Innovation, 19(3), 372-399.
  • 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(4), 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), 34.
  • Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 811.
  • Klein, K. J., & Knight, A. P. (2005). Innovation implementation: Overcoming the challenge. Current directions in psychological science, 14(5), 243-246.
  • Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of management review, 21(4), 1055-1080.
  • Korunka, C., Weiss, A., & Zauchner, S. (1997). An interview study of'continuous' implementations of information technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 16(1), 3-16.
  • Kozjek, D., & Ovsenik, M. (2017). Model of Knowledge Management Factors and their Impact on the Organizations’ Success. Organizacija, 50(2), 112-131.
  • 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(1), 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(1), 16-25.
  • Kumar, V., Maheshwari, B., & Kumar, U. (2003). An investigation of critical management issues in ERP implementation: emperical evidence from Canadian organizations. Technovation, 23(10), 793-807.
  • Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2014). Why implementing corporate innovation is so difficult. Business Horizons, 57(5), 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(6), 483-498.
  • Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 40(3), 191-204.
  • Leiva, P. I., Culbertson, S. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2011). An empirical test of an innovation implementation model. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 14(4), 265.
  • Li, Y., Wood, E., & Thomas, R. (2017). Innovation implementation: Harmony and conflict in Chinese modern music festivals. Tourism management, 63, 87-99.
  • 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, 59-87.
  • Ling, F. Y. Y. (2003). Managing the implementation of construction innovations. Construction Management and Economics, 21(6), 635-649.
  • Ling, F. Y. Y., Dulaimi, M. F., Kumaraswamy, M., & Bajracharya, A. (2003). A case study of the management of innovation implementation within a construction project organization. International Journal of Construction Management, 3(2), 79-91.
  • Linton, J. D. (2002). Implementation research: state of the art and future directions. Technovation, 22(2), 65-79.
  • Ljungquist, U. (2014). Unbalanced dynamic capabilities as obstacles of organisational efficiency: Implementation issues in innovative technology adoption. Innovation, 16(1), 82-95.
  • 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(1), 267-300.
  • Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business : why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business 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(4), 408-429.
  • Mohrman, S. A., Tenkasi, R. V., & Mohrman Jr, A. M. (2003). The role of networks in fundamental organizational change: A grounded analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 301-323.
  • Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel psychology, 53(2), 375-403.
  • Naveh, E., Meilich, O., & Marcus, A. (2006). The effects of administrative innovation implementation on performance: an organizational learning approach. Strategic Organization, 4(3), 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. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24-42.
  • Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice: Sage publications.
  • Novićević, B., & Jelenić, D. (2008). The future of the cost management in a competitive environment. Thematic collection of papers, 137-146.
  • Oke, A., Munshi, N., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). The influence of leadership on innovation processes and activities. Organizational Dynamics, 38(1), 64-72.
  • 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(4), 423-444.
  • Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS quarterly, 115-143.
  • Petersilia, J. (1990). Conditions that permit intensive supervision programs to survive. Crime & Delinquency, 36(1), 126-145.
  • Porter, B. E. (2005). Time and implementing change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 1063-1065.
  • Pullig, C., Maxham III, J. G., & Hair Jr, J. F. (2002). Salesforce automation systems: An exploratory examination of organizational factors associated with effective implementation and salesforce productivity. Journal of Business Research, 55(5), 401-415.
  • Quintane, E., Mitch Casselman, R., Sebastian Reiche, B., & Nylund, P. A. (2011). Innovation as a knowledge-based outcome. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 928-947.
  • Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R. J. (1990). Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 15(1), 88-102.
  • Repenning, N. P., & Sterman, J. D. (2002). Capability traps and self-confirming attribution errors in the dynamics of process improvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 265-295.
  • Rogers, E. (1995). DiffusionofInnovations . newYork: TheFreePress.
  • Ruta, C. D. (2005). The application of change management theory to HR portal implementation in subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Human Resource Management, 44(1), 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(4), 659-688.
  • 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(4), 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(3), 580-607.
  • Segarra-Blasco, A., Arauzo-Carod, J.-M., & Teruel, M. (2018). Innovation and geographical spillovers: new approaches and empirical evidence: Taylor & Francis.
  • Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2003). The contingent effects of management support and task interdependence on successful information systems implementation. MIS quarterly, 533-556.
  • Sohal, A. S. (1996). Assessing AMT implementations: an empirical field study. Technovation, 16(8), 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(3), 684-708.
  • Stumpf, S. A., Brief, A. P., & Hartman, K. (1987). Self-efficacy expectations and coping with career-related events. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(1), 91-108.
  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS quarterly, 561-570.
  • Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation integrating technological, market and organizational change: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
  • Trivisonno, M., & Barling, J. (2016). 22. Organizational leadership and employee commitment. Handbook of employee commitment, 305.
  • 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(1), 12.
  • 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), 121.
  • Van de Ven, A. H., & Angle, H. L. (1989). Suggestions for managing the innovation journey: Strategic Management Research Center, University of Minnesota.
  • Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS quarterly, 239-260.
  • Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
  • Venkatesh, V., Speier, C., & Morris, M. G. (2002). User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: Toward an integrated model. Decision sciences, 33(2), 297-316.
  • Vrakking, W. J. (1995). The implementation game. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 8(3), 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(11), 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(1), 63-77.
  • Weenig, M. W. (1999). Communication networks in the diffusion of an innovation in an organization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 1072-1092.
  • Winkler, K., & Mandl, H. (2007). Implementation of knowledge management in organizations. Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 71-81. doi:10.1007/s11519-007-0006-0
  • Wolfe, R., Wright, P. M., & Smart, D. L. (2006). Radical HRM innovation and competitive advantage: The Moneyball story. Human Resource Management, 45(1), 111-145.
  • Wolfe, R. A. (1995). Human resource management innovations: Determinants of their adoption and implementation. Human Resource Management, 34(2), 313-327.
  • Yetton, P., Sharma, R., & Southon, G. (1999). Successful IS innovation: the contingent contributions of innovation characteristics and implementation process. Journal of Information Technology, 14(1), 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(3), 393-426.
  • Yoon, Y., Guimaraes, T., & O'Neal, Q. (1995). Exploring the factors associated with expert systems success. MIS quarterly, 83-106.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,899
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 994