1. ¹Department of Information Technology, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
2. ²Department of Information Systems, Case Western Reserve University, The Weatherhead School of Management, Cleveland, OH, USA

Correspondence: Erja Mustonen-Ollila, Department of Information Technology, Lappeenranta University of Technology, PO Box 20, FIN-53851 Lappeenranta, Finland. Tel: +358-5-621 2857; E-mail: Erja.Mustonen-Ollila@lut.fi

Received 12 October 2001; Revised 13 June 2002; Re-revised 12 April 2003; Accepted 3 June 2003.

Abstract

This paper describes how three organizations adopted information system (IS) process innovations (ISPI) using a sample of over 200 adoptions over a period of four decades. Four distinct periods that roughly follow Friedman's and Cornford's categorization of IS development eras are analysed in terms of the rate and distribution of ISPI adoptions. These eras include early computing (1954–1965), mainframe (1965–1983), office computing (1983–1991), and distributed applications (1991–1997). We distinguish the following four types of ISPIs: base line technologies (T); tools (TO); description methods (D); and managerial innovations (M). We analyse for each era the rate of adopting different types of ISPIs, identify who made adoption decisions for those ISPI types and determine whether these ISPIs originated internally or externally. Within the three organizations, the types and rates of ISPI adoptions varied significantly. These variations can be attributed to learning mechanisms, the influence of legacy platforms and differences in the boundary spanning activities. With the exception of base line technologies, project managers were the most prominent decision-maker group, suggesting a situated ISPI adoption process. In most ISPI adoptions, internal search and experiments were the main source of innovation. The variation in ISPI adoptions can thus be partly explained by development environments, the types of IS involved and attention bias.