Jump to content

Technology–organization–environment framework

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jacch123 (talk | contribs) at 03:09, 24 November 2020 (Created page with 'In 1990, Tornatzky and Fleisher (1990) <ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Tornatzky | first1 = L.G. | last2 = Fleischer | first2 = M. | year = 1990| title = The Proce...'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In 1990, Tornatzky and Fleisher (1990) [1] introduced the technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework for explaining technology adoption in organizations. TOE describes how the process of adopting and implementing technological innovations are being influenced by the technological context, organizational context, and environmental context.


File:TOE Model.jpg


Numerous application examples of TOE framework are summarized by Olivera and Martins (2011) [2].

As Awa, Ukoha & Igwe (2017) [3] reiterated, TOE framework is for organizational level analysis. The framework focuses on higher level attributes (i.e. the technological, organizational, and environmental contexts) instead of detailed behaviors of individuals in the organization. To understand technology adoption at individual level, behavioral models such as Theory of Reasoned Action, Theory of Planned Behavior, and Technology acceptance model should be applied. While this classification of organization level theory and individual level theory is generally accepted, it also leads to the difficulty of how to investigate the higher level attributes. Information can only be obtained from individuals in the target organization and hence inevitably biased by individuals' viewpoints. Li (2020) [4]. has demonstrated a rough equivalence of behavioral models and TOE framework when individual perception has been taken into account.

Despite TOE framework has been widely used, it has undergone limited theoretical development since its introduction (Baker, 2012) [5]. According to Zhu and Kraemer (2005) [6] , the reason for lacking of development is that TOE framework is "too generic" and offers high degree of freedom to vary factors and measures so there is little need to change the theory itself. Another important reason, according to Baker (2012), is the theory aligns "too well" with other technology adoption theories and does not offer competitive explanations. Thus, there is very limited tension to modify the framework.

  1. ^ Tornatzky, L.G.; Fleischer, M. (1990). "The Processes of Technological Innovation". Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts.
  2. ^ Oliveira, T.; Martins, M. (2011). "Literature Review of Information Technology Adoption Models at Firm Level". The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation. 14 (1): 110–121.
  3. ^ Awa, H.; Ukoha, O.; Igwe, S. (2011). "Integrated technology-organization-environment (T-O-E) taxonomies for technology adoption". Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 30 (6): 893–921.
  4. ^ Li, J.C.F. (2011). "Roles of Individual Perception in Technology Adoption at Organization Level: Behavioral Model versus TOE Framework". Journal of System and Management Sciences. 10 (3): 97–118. doi:10.33168/JSMS.2020.0308.
  5. ^ Baker, J. (2012). "The Technology–Organization–Environment Framework". Information Systems Theory - Explaining and Predicting Our Digital Society, Vol. 1 (Dwivedi, Wade, and Schneberger (Eds.)), Springer: 231–245.
  6. ^ Zhu, K.; Kraemer, K.L. (2005). "Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by organizations: Cross-country evidence from the retail industry". Information Systems Research. 16 (1): 61–84.