X hits on this document

PDF document

Journal of Information Technology Management - page 6 / 12

35 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

6 / 12

THE INFLUENCE OF A LEARNING CULTURE ON IT INVESTMENTS

H4: There is a direct positive relationship be- tween an organization’s continuous-learning culture and KM technologies adoption.

variables revealed no significant difference between re- spondents and nonrespondents. There is also no signifi- cant difference in terms of organizational size between respondents and nonrespondents.

METHODOLOGY

A survey instrument was used to test these hy- potheses. After reading an IT investment scenario, re- spondents answered questions regarding their company’s decision-making process. The scenario used is shown in the Appendix.

The survey was refined through four stages. First, several academic experts in the IS field reviewed the sur- vey. Modifications were made based on their feedback. Next, seven IT executives from the Society of Information Management (SIM) organization completed a pilot survey and provided comments on the appropriateness and clarity of the questions. Then 12 additional content experts re- viewed the questionnaire. The survey was finalized based on their recommendations.

Three sources were used for contacting organiza-

tions in this research. The use of multiple sources of con- tacts adds to the breadth in sampling of IT decision- makers. The first source was a list of 539 IT executive names, organizations and addresses provided by the ex- ecutive education branch of a large, international com- puter hardware and software manufacturing company. The second source was a list of names, organizations, ad- dresses and phone numbers provided by a computer re- search company. This list consisted of 575 randomly se- lected names and addresses for professionals, who were classified as “top computer executives.” A third source of 401 company contacts was obtained from the CORPTECH database, produced by Corporate Technol- ogy Information Services. The executive responsible for MIS was selected from that listing for this research. The names and addresses of data were combined to insure that

duplicate surveys were not sent to the same organization.

The final instrument was mailed to the IT execu- tives in 1515 organizations selected from the sample. The chief IT executive from each organization was chosen to be the respondent. After the survey was mailed, follow-up calls were made to 592 organizations from the second and third contact lists. Phone numbers were not available on the first contact list. Of the 1,515 surveys mailed, 1,242 were deliverable to the addresses and a total of 200 sur- veys were returned yielding a 16% response rate. Nonre- sponse bias was assessed by the commonly used method of treating responses received after the deadline given (three weeks after the survey was mailed to the respon- dents) as being representative of nonrespondents’ bias 0. Statistical analysis of key constructs and demographic

The responding organizations were from 37 states. Median annual revenue of the organizations was reported as $150 million, with a median IT budget of $1.7 million. Of the participating organizations, 28% were nonprofit organizations. Table 1 shows the title of the executives who responded. In practice, these professionals have considerable influence on IT investment decisions within their organizations.

Table 1: Titles of Executives Completing the Survey

Executive title

Number of persons

President

3

Vice president

49

Director (IS/IT)

49

CIO

19

CFO

2

Controller

5

IS/IT manager

48

Other

25

Total

200

The continuous-learning culture was measured by 21 items taken from the study in 0. Three items were dropped from the original scale because of a conceptual overlap with another construct the study intended to measure. In addition, the phrases changed from “In my store….” to “In my organization….” A five-point Likert scale was used, with anchors ranging from “never” to “al- ways.” The reliability score of the construct is 0.93.

Change management consideration was measured by five items. Examples include “thinking about the costs of communicating information about the changes to the users”, “considering the time managers will need to spend overseeing the change” and “discussing with managers the degree of employee resistance to change.” A seven-point Likert scale was used to capture responses to the items. The reliability score of the construct is 0.88.

Involvement of functional managers was meas- ured by asking the respondents: “In your organizations, whose “buy-in” would be required for this type of deci- sion?” The choices were “mine, my manager, the CEO/president, an executive/management committee and functional managers.” If a respondent chose functional managers, the item took a value of 1; otherwise it had a

Journal of Information Technology Management Volume XVI, Number 3, 2005

23

Document info
Document views35
Page views35
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 14:14:00 UTC 2016
Pages12
Paragraphs375
Words7516

Comments