Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Pawar, Prafulla
- An Exploration of Enhancing Adoption and Agility in Technological Changes
Abstract Views :310 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Management Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, IN
1 Department of Management Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, IN
Source
Journal of Organization and Human Behaviour, Vol 6, No 3 (2017), Pagination: 15-20Abstract
In the present paper, the optimal way of increasing employee’s adoption and agility in technological changes and the proper designed strategies suggested by scholars to managers as policy makers to manipulate these technological changes and develop the foremost approach to control unexpected changes in companies are explored. After investigating related works and scrutinising numerous approaches surrounding managing technological changes; it is perceived a successful technological change management depends, to a great extent, on employees’ capabilities to be more adopted and agile in implementing new technologies satisfactorily. Since employees play the main role in accomplishing technological tasks, they should possess skills related to those new technologies. As keeping regular employees has some obstacles mentioned in the following; the optimal option of having skilled staff with more adoption and agility in technological changes can be produced through contingent workforce system in the light of vintage human capital model in this study. Besides, technology diffusion theory is considered marginally in this paper to manifest the presence of employees’ adoption and agility in technological changes.Keywords
Technological Change, Adoption, Agility, Contingent Workforce, Technology Diffusion, Vintage Human Capital Model.
References
- Attewell, P. (1992). Technology diffusion and organizational learning: The case of business computing. Organization Science, 3(1), 1-19.
- Bartel, A. P., & Lichtenberg, F. R. (1987). The comparative advantage of educated workers in implementing new technology. Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, 1-11.
- Baskerville, R. L., Mathiassen, L., & Pries-Heje, J. (2005). Business agility and information technology diffusion. Springer, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
- Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5), 215-227.
- Borjesson, A., Martinsson, F., & Timmeras, M. (2006). Agile improvement practices in software organizations. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 169-182.
- Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005). Contingent and alternative employment arrangements. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/conemp.nr0.htm
- Chari, V. V., & Hopenhayn, H. (1987). Vintage human capital, growth, and the diffusion of new technology. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Research Department. Working Paper 375.
- Chari, V. V., & Hopenhayn, H. (1991). Vintage human capital, growth, and diffusion of new technology. The Journal of Political Economy, 99(6), 1142-1165.
- Christie, I., Northcott, J., & Walling, A. (1990). Employment effects of new technology in manufacturing. Policy Studies Institute, 716. ISBN: 0853744955
- Comin, D. A., & Hobijn, B. (2010). An exploration of technology diffusion. American Economic Review, 100(5), 2031-2059.
- Comin, D. A., Dmitriev, M., & Rossi-Hansberg, E. (2012). The spatial diffusion of technology. CEPR Discussion Paper 9208 and NBER Working Paper 18534.
- Dally, K. A. (1997). Managing the contingent workforce: Lessons for success. Queen’s University Industrial Relations Centre (IRC). ISBN: 0-88886-452-3
- Dellaert, N., Jeunet, J., & Mincsovics, G. (2008). Budget allocation for permanent and contingent capacity under stochastic demand. Working paper, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
- Gartside, D., Silverstone, Y., Farley, C., & Cantrell, S. M. (2013). Trends reshaping the future of HR. The rise of the extended workforce. Accenture Institute for High Performance.
- Heffron, F. (1968). Organization theory and public organizations. New Jersey.
- Helpman, E., & Rangel, A. (1998). Adjusting to a new technology: Experience and training. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper 6551.
- Hipple, S., & Stewart, J. (1996). Earnings and benefits of contingent and noncontingent workers. Monthly Labour Review, 119(10), 22-30.
- Kandt, R. K. (2002). Organizational change management principles and practices. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, USA. Retrieved from http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/10570
- Kredler, M. (2008). Experience vs. obsolescence: A vintage-Human-Capital Model. MPRA Paper No. 10200: New York. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10200/
- Ledez, R. E. (2008). Change management: Getting a tuned up organization. Business Intelligence Journal, European Management Development, 1(1), 111-119.
- Lyytinen, K., & Rose, G. M. (2004). How agile is agile enough? Towards a theory of agility in software development. Case Western Reserve University, USA. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 4(10). ISSN 1535-6078. Retrieved from http://sprouts.aisnet.org/4-10
- Polivka, A. E., & Nardone, T. (1989). On the definition of contingent work. Monthly Labor Review, 112(12), 9-16.
- March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
- Markovic, M. R. (2008). Effective organizational change management. Serbian Journal of Management, 3(1), 119-125.
- Qin, R., & Nembhard, D. A. (2010). Workforce agility for stochastically diffused conditions: A real options perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 125(2), 324-334.
- Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
- Rosenberg, N. (1972). Factors affecting the diffusion of technology. Explorations in Economic History, 10(1), 3-33. Reprinted in Rosenberg, N. (1976), Perspectives on Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189-212.
- Svedaite, E., & Tamosiunas, T. (2013). Investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of temporary employment. Socialiniai tyrimai / Social Research, 1(30), 64-70. ISSN 1392-3110
- Swanson, E. B. (1994). Information systems innovation among organizations. Management Science, 40(9), 1069-1088.
- Weinberg, B. A. (2004). Experience and technology adoption. IZA DP No: 1051.
- Wilson, D. R. (2010). Case study: Jeppesen gains agility with contingent workforce management. Gartner, ID Number: G00171831.
- Yaghoubi, N. M., & Rahat Dahmardeh, M. (2011). Knowledge management; critical success factor in organizational agility. American Journal of Social and Management Sciences, 2(3), 272-277.
- Study of Expectancy Motivation in IT Developers
Abstract Views :210 |
PDF Views:1
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Management Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, IN
1 Department of Management Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, IN
Source
Telecom Business Review, Vol 11, No 1 (2018), Pagination: 6-11Abstract
The aim of the present work is to study the subscales of motivation namely expectancy, performance and rewards on the base of Vroom’s expectancy theory of motivation. This study assumes there is a causal relationship between expectancy, performance, and rewards as the subscales of motivation. Then, the expectancy motivation questionnaire is formed and distributed among 90 IT developers in 90 IT companies in Pune-India. The findings show there is a collinearity of the subscales of motivation (expectancy, performance, and rewards). Further, respondents mostly value training program among the reward categories assigned to IT developers (i.e. monetary, training and family facilities and emotional encouragement). It assumes that due to constant technological changes needing updated knowledge and skills, they prefer to improve their job abilities through training programs to increase their human capital to be upgraded for further job opportunities. Thus, their expectancy toward their abilities of fulfilling tasks would increase leading to the repeat of the motivation cycle. Shortly, the results illustrate a misfit model due to the collinearity of the subscales in this study. However, expectancy shows a positive effect on rewards, performance shows an inverse effect on rewards. On the other hand, the findings show IT developers prefer training program rather than other reward categories to increase their expectation toward job performance to accomplish the tasks satisfactorily. Then according to well-done performance, IT developers would value the rewards assigned to them.Keywords
Vroom’s Theory, Expectancy, Performance, Rewards.References
- Bonner, S. E., & Sprinkle, G. B. (2002). The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: Theories, evidence, and a framework for research.Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(4-5), 303-345.
- De Simone, S. (2015). Expectancy value theory: Motivating healthcare workers. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 5(2), 19-23.
- Horst, P. (1982). Expectancy theory modeling. (NPRDC Tech. Rep. 82-56). San Diego: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center (AD-A119 128).
- Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
- Lawler, E. E., & Suttle, J. L. (1973). Expectancy theory and job behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9(3), 482-503.
- Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Expectancy theory of motivation: Motivating by altering expectations. International Journal of Management, Business and Administration, 15(1), 1-6.
- McShane, S. L., Von Glinow, M. A., & Sharma, R. R. (2006). Organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Tata McGraw-Hill. ISBN10: 0070620091
- Mullins, L. J. (2010). Management and organizational behavior (10th ed.) Harlow, Essex: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
- Nebeker, D. M., & Moy, M. C. (1976). Work performance: A new approach to expectancy theory predictions (NPRDC Tech. Rep. 76TQ-47). San Diego: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center (ADA030 451).
- Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press and Richard D. Irwin.
- Sevilla, Consuelo G. et al. (2007). Research methods. Rex Printing Company. Quezon City.
- Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 575-586.
- Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- A Comparison Between Fresh and Old Employees’ Adoption and Agility in Technological Changes
Abstract Views :293 |
PDF Views:1
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Management Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, IN
1 Department of Management Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, IN
Source
OPUS: HR Journal, Vol 9, No 1 (2018), Pagination: 1-15Abstract
The aim of this study is to compare fresh and old employees’ adoption and agility in technological changes according to their vintage-specific human capital. It is inquired that who are more adopted and agile in technological changes since fresh employees have updated skills and education related to new vintage and old employees have obsolescent skills related to old vintage. Therefore, this study assumes that whether fresh employees with updated skills are more adopted and agile in technological changes or old employees with obsolescent experience. Two questionnaires about adoption and agility are distributed among 324 top level managers in IT companies in Pune-India. In this perception study, the respondents are asked for filling the questionnaires according to their opinion about their fresh and old employees’ adoption and agility in technological changes. The data analyzed through Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test show there is a significant difference between fresh and old employees’ adoption and agility in technological changes. It can be inferred that fresh and old employees’ adoption and agility are needed for a satisfactory technological change. Since both of their vintage-specific human capital is complementary to each other to have an optimal technological change.Keywords
Adoption, Agility, Vintage-Specific Human Capital, Technological Change.References
- Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/aizen/f&a1975.html
- Attewell, P. (1992). Technology diffusion and organizational learning: The case of business computing. Organization Science, 3(1), 1-19.
- Bass, F.M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5), 215-227.
- Bullinger, H. J. (1999). Turbulent times require creative thinking: New European concepts in production management. International Journal of Production Economics, 60(61), 9-27.
- Chari, V. V., & Hopenhayn, H. (1987). Vintage human capital, growth, and the diffusion of new technology. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Research Department. Working Paper 375.
- Comin, D., & Hobijn, B. (2009). The CHAT data set. Harvard Business School and NBER Working Paper 10035.
- Comin, D., & Mestieri, M. (2014). Technology diffusion: Measurement, causes and consequences. Chapter 02 in Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 2, 565-622
- Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and prosper where others fail. Toronto: Random House. ISBN: 0-679-40684-0
- Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Doctoral Dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. ISBN: 0201020890 Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/aizen/f&a1975.html
- Giachetti, R. E., Martinez, L. D., Sáenz, O. A., & Chen, C. S. (2003). Analysis of the structural measures of flexibility and agility using a measurement theoretical framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 86(1), 47-62.
- Godden, B. (2004). Sample Size Formulas (January). Retrieved from http://williamgodden.com/samplesizeformula.pdf
- Haeckel, S. H. (1999). Adaptive enterprise: Creating and leading sense-and-respond organizations. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 9780875848747
- Helpman, E., & Rangel, A. (1998). Adjusting to a new technology: Experience and training. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper 6551.
- Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press. ISBN: 978-0-87584-747-4
- Kredler, M. (2008). Experience vs. obsolescence: A vintage-Human-Capital Model. MPRA Paper No. 10200: New York. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10200/
- Kredler, M. (2014). Experience vs. obsolescence: A vintage-human-capital model. Journal of Economic Theory, 150(1), 709-739.
- Lyytinen, K., & Rose, G. M. (2004). How agile is agile enough? Towards a theory of agility in software development. Case Western Reserve University, USA. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 4(10). ISSN 1535-6078 http://sprouts.aisnet.org/4-10
- Mathiassen, L. & Pries-Heje, J. (2006). Business agility and diffusion of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 116-119.
- Nagel, R. N., & Dove, R. (1991). In Goldman, S. & Preiss, K. (Eds.), 21st Century Manufacturing Enterprise Strategy: An Industry-Led View, Lehigh University, Iacocca Institute, Darby, PA.
- Pawar, P., & Meymandpour, R. (2017). An exploration of enhancing adoption and agility in technological changes. Journal of Organisation & Human Behaviour, 6(3), 15-20.
- Plonka, F. E. (1997). Developing a lean and agile workforce. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 7(1), 11-20.
- Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.
- Qin, R., & Nembhard, D. A. (2010). Workforce agility for stochastically diffused conditions: A real options perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 125(2), 324-334.
- Rosenberg, M. J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53(3), 367-372.
- Rosenberg, N. (1972). Factors affecting the diffusion of technology. Explorations in Economic History, 10(1), 3-33. Reprinted in N. Rosenberg, (1976). Perspectives on Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189-212.
- Song, X. (2009). Why do change management strategies fail? Illustrations with case studies. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4(1), 6-15.
- Svedaite, E., & Tamosiunas, T. (2013). Investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of temporary employment. Socialiniai tyrimai / Social Research, 1(30), 64-70. ISSN 1392-3110
- Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144-176. doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144
- Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1994). Influence of experience on personal computer utilization: Testing a conceptual model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(1), 167-187.
- Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and Attitude Change. New York: John Wiley. ISBN 0471888311
- Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-581.
- Weinberg, B. A. (2004). Experience and technology adoption. IZA DP No: 1051.
- Yaghoubi, N. M., & Rahat Dahmardeh, M. (2011). Knowledge management; critical success factor in organizational agility. American Journal of Social and Management Sciences, 2(3), 272-277.
- Zain, M., Che Rose, R., Abdullah, I., & Masrom, M. (2005). The relationship between information technology acceptance and organizational agility in Malaysia. Information & Management, 42(6), 829-839.
- Zhang, D. Z. (2011). Towards theory building in agile manufacturing strategies - Case studies of an agility taxonomy. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 303-312.
- A Study of Collective-Work Approach on Perceived Creativity for Enhancing Leadership Qualities in IT Companies
Abstract Views :363 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Management Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, IN
2 Department of Biostatistics, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, IR
1 Department of Management Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, IN
2 Department of Biostatistics, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, IR
Source
Telecom Business Review, Vol 12, No 1 (2019), Pagination: 11-17Abstract
The present work aims to examine the effect of collective-work approach on creativity for improving leadership qualities in an unstructured decision-making process especially in uncertainty of IT sections. Perusing related studies surrounding the current issue, it is realized managers can involve team setting policy in developing options stage of a non-programmed decision-making process since the secondary data indicate collective work can elevate creativity sources. Besides, creativity is considered as a moderator for reinforcing leadership attributes. While these qualities enhance leadership performance enabling managers to detect the optimum options when they encounter organizational chaos. Accordingly, a model of an unstructured decisionmaking process is hypothesized in which team-setting is considered as a predictor variable for increasing creativity sources which are recognized as moderators. Then, leadership qualities crenellated by creativity are recognized as a criterion variable for promoting leadership performance. So, the primary data are collected through 38-statements questionnaires involving collective work, creativity and leadership qualities from 86 IT managers in Pune-India being ready to approach collective work policy in their unstructured decision-making. Through correlation, regression analysis and Durbin-Watson test, it is found there is a positive relationship between the variables. The tests between-subjects effects and SEM show the predictor variables have significant interaction with the criterion variables. Besides, ANOVA illustrates there is a significant difference between the means of predictors of this study. It would be concluded team setting approach can enhance creativity to moderate the leadership qualities for an effective unstructured decision-making process.Keywords
Collective Work, Leadership Attributes, Creativity, Unstructured Decision-Making Process.References
- Adair, J. (2013). Decision making and problem solving. Kogan Page. ISBN 978-0-7494-6696-1
- Amabile, T. M. (2013). Componential theory of creativity. In: Kessler, E.H., Ed., Encyclopedia of Management Theory, pp. 134-139. Sage Publications, London.
- Aswathappa, K. (2008). Organizational behavior: Text, cases & games. Himalaya Publishing House.
- Feenstra, R. H. (2010). The role of creativity in naturalistic decision-making environments: A systems approach. UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional papers, and Capstones, Paper 743.
- George, J. M. (2007). Chapter 9: Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 439-477.
- Ghuman, K., & Aswathappa, K. (2010). Management: Concept, practice and cases. McGraw Hill: New Delhi. ISBN 9780-07-068218-4
- Godden, B. (2004, January). Sample size formulas. Retrieved from http://williamgodden.com/samplesizeformula.pdf
- Hargadon, A. B, & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484-500.
- Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of unstructured decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2), 246-275.
- Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Fleishman, E. A., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (1993). Cognitive and temperament predictors of executive ability: Principles for developing leadership capacity. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
- Riordan, N. O., & Reilly, O. P. (2011). Virtual worlds: S(t)imulating creativity in decision making. Journal of Decision Systems, 20(3), 325-351.
- Singh, N. (2009). Organizational behaviour: Concepts, theory and practices: Managing people in the 21st century. Deep and Deep Publications: New Delhi. ISBN 81-7629-287-7
- Tongo, C. I. (2015). Collective work motivation in knowledge based organizations. Team Performance Management, 21(7/8), 386-404.
- Weihrch, H., & Koontz, H. (2001). Management: A global perspective. Tata Mc Graw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-047378-1
- A Study of the Modificative Role of Human Capital on Adoption, Agility and Technology Diffusion as Mediators for Achieving an Optimal Change Management
Abstract Views :286 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Management Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, IN
2 Professor, Department of Management Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, IN
3 Associate Professor, Department of Biostatistics, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, IR
1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Management Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, IN
2 Professor, Department of Management Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, IN
3 Associate Professor, Department of Biostatistics, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, IR
Source
OPUS: HR Journal, Vol 10, No 2 (2019), Pagination: 46-71Abstract
This study is carried out with the aim of investigating the deterministic role of human capital for enhancing adoption and agility in the diffusion process of a new technology in order to implement technological changes satisfactorily. This causal relationship is carried outbased on five variables; human capital, adoption, agility, technology diffusion and change management measured through five questionnaires with 71 statements distributed among 432 IT employees in Pune-India. The collected data are analyzed through IBM SPSS 23, LISREL 8.5 and Mplus 6.12. However, the data analysis shows that there is a positive relationship between human capital, adoption, agility and technology diffusion as predictor variables with change management as a criterion variable, the interaction of adoption, agility and technology diffusion is not significant to support the proposed model of this study. This is while, human capital as the main independent variable could be placed in two modified models to examine the mediating roles of adoption and agility for a satisfactory change management in one model as well as the mediating role of technology diffusion in another model. It can be concluded that employees’ human capital as a main independent variable can enhance employees’ adoption and agility in technology diffusion to proceed a satisfactory technological change management. In other words, human capital is recognized as an essential capability in proceeding technological changes.Keywords
Human Capital, Adoption, Agility, Technology Diffusion, Technological Change Management.References
- Andresen, K., & Gronau, N. (2006). Managing change – Determining the adaptability of information systems. In European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS), July 6-7, Costa Blanca, Alicante, Spain.
- Attewell, P. (1992). Technology diffusion and organizational learning: The case of business computing. Organization Science, 3(1), 1-19.
- Bartel, A. P., & Lichtenberg, F. R. (1987). The comparative advantage of educated workers in implementing new technology. Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(1), 1-11.
- Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5), 215-227.
- Benhabib, J., & Spiegel, M. M. (2005). Human capital and technology diffusion. Chapter 13 in Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 1, Part A, 935-966.
- Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2), 63-76.
- Chari, V. V., & Hopenhayn, H. (1987). Vintage human capital, growth, and the diffusion of new technology. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Research Department. Working Paper 375.
- Chari, V. V., & Hopenhayn, H. (1991). Vintage human capital, growth, and diffusion of new technology. The Journal of Political Economy, 99(6), 1142-1165.
- Comin, D., & Hobijn, B. (2009). The CHAT data set. Harvard Business School and NBER Working Paper 10035.
- Comin, D., Dmitriev, M. & Rossi-Hansberg, E. (2012). The spatial diffusionnof technology. CEPR Discussion Paper 9208 and NBER Working Paper 18534.
- Comin, D., & Mestieri, M. (2014). Technology diffusion: Measurement, causes and consequences. Chapter 02 in Handbook of Economic Growth, 2, 565-622.
- Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2008). Organization development and change (9th ed.). South-Western: Cengage Learning. ISBN 13: 978-0-324-42138-5
- Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, Minneapolis (MN), 13(3), 319-339.
- DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147.
- Dove, R. (2005). Agile Enterprise cornerstone: Knowledge, values and response ability. In R. L. Baskerville, L. Mathiassen, J. Pries-Heje, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Business Agility and Information Technology Diffusion. International Working Conference, 313-330, U.S.A.: Springer. ISBN-10: (eBook) 0-387-25590-7
- Dunlop-Hinkler, D., Parente, R., Marion, T. J., & Friar, J. H. (2011). The role of technology agility on business processes and organizational agilities. IEEE International Technology Management Conference. doi:10.1109/ITMC.2011.5995930
- Fichman, R. G. (1992). Information technology diffusion: A review of empirical research. International Conference on Information Systems, 195-206.
- Fichman, R. G., & Kemerer, C. F. (1993). Toward a theory of the adoption and diffusion of software process innovations. IFIP TC8 Working Group Conference Proceedings, Champion, PA, Levine, L. (Ed.), Elsevier Science Publications, New York, 23-31.
- Goldman, S., Nagel, R., & Preiss, K. (1995). Agile competitors and virtual organizations. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
- Gosh, S. M., Sharma, H. R., & Mohabay, V. (2011). Software change management – Technological dimension. International Journal of Smart Home, 5(2), 29-36.
- Haeckel, S. H. (1999). Adaptive enterprise: Creating and leading sense- and- respond organizations. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 9780875848747 Hall, B. H., & Khan, B. (2002). Adoption of new technology. New Economy Handbook.
- Kandt, R. K. (2002). Organizational change management principles and practices. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, USA. Retrieved from http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/10570
- Kredler, M. (2008). Experience vs. obsolescence: A vintage-Human-Capital Model. MPRA Paper No. 10200: New York. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10200/
- Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
- Lin, Z., & Hui, C. (1997). Adapting to the changing environment: A theoretical comparison of decision making proficiency of lean and mass organization systems. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 3(2), 113-142.
- Lyytinen, K., & Rose, G. M. (2004). How agile is agile enough? Towards a theory of agility in software development. Case Western Reserve University, USA. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 4(10). ISSN 1535-6078. Retrieved from http://sprouts.aisnet.org/4-10
- MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149.
- Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S. (2000). Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 569-600.
- Mathiassen, L., & Pries-Heje, J. (2006). Business agility and diffusion of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 116-119.
- Messinis, G., & Ahmed, A. D. (2008). Valuable skills, human capital and technology diffusion. Working Paper No. 38, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University.
- Meymandpour, R., & Pawar, P. (2018). A comparison between fresh and old employees’ adoption and agility in technological changes. OPUS, 9(1), 1-15.
- Pawar, P., & Meymandpour, R. (2017). An exploration of enhancing adoption and agility in technological changes. Journal of Organisation & Human Behaviour, 6(3), 15-20.
- Popper, S. W. (2003). Technological change and the challenges for 21st century governance. In A. H. Teich, S. D. Nelson, S. J. Lita & A. E. Hunt (Eds.), AAAS science and Technology policy yearbook. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
- Pryor, M. G., Taneja, S., Humphreys, J., Anderson, D., & Singleton, L. (2008). Challenges facing change management theories and research. Delhi Business Review, 1-20.
- Qin, R., & Nembhard, D. A. (2010). Workforce agility for stochastically diffused conditions - A real options perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 125(2), 324-334.
- Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). The Free Press, Macmillan Publishing: New York. ISBN: 0-02-926650-5
- Rosenberg, N. (1972). Factors affecting the diffusion of technology. Explorations in Economic History, 10(1), 3-33. Reprinted in Rosenberg, N. (1976), Perspectives on Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189-212.
- Schütz, F., Huenges, E., Spalek, A., Bruhn, D., Pérez, P., & De Gregorio, M. (2013). Employment study: Solutions on lack of skilled workers in the geothermal sector and results of the questionnaires. Co-funded by the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme of the European Union. Retrieved from http://gfzpublic.gfzpotsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:376373:5/component/escidoc:376372/Sch%C3%BCtz%20et%20al.%20GEOELEC_Employment%20study.pdf
- Sharabati, A. A. A., Naji Jawad, S., & Bontis, N. (2010). Intellectual capital and business performance in the pharmaceutical sector of Jordan. Management Decision, 48(1), 105-131.
- Siddiqui, J., & Rahman, Z. (2012). Can IT/IS synergy with agility counter the productivity paradox? A perspective from existing literature. Journal of Engineering, Computers & Applied Sciences (JEC&AS), 1(3), 25-32.
- Song, X. (2009). Why do change management strategies fail? Illustrations with case studies. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4(1), 6-15.
- Sonnenwald, D. H., Maglaughlin, K. L., & Whitton, M. C. (2001). Using innovation diffusion theory to guide collaboration technology evaluation. Proceedings of the IEEE 10th International Workshop on Enabling Technologies, Work in Progress, Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (pp. 114-119). WETICE, Cambridge, United States: IEEE Computer Society. ISBN: 0769512690
- Stohr, E. A., & Zhao, J. L. (1997). A technology adaptation model for business process automation. Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 4, 405-414.
- Strang, D., & Soule, S.A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 265-290.
- Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144-176. doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.14
- The Research Advisors. (2006). Sample size table. Retrieved from https://www.research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm
- Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-581.
- West, D., & Grant, T. (2010). Agile development: Mainstream adoption has changed agility – Trends in real-world adoption of agile methods. For Application Development and Program Management Professional (pp. 1-20). Forrester Research, Cambridge, MA.
- Yaghoubi, N. M., & Rahat Dahmardeh, M. (2011). Knowledge management; critical success factor in organizational agility. American Journal of Social and Management Sciences, 2(3), 272-277.
- Zhang, D. Z. (2011). Towards theory building in agile manufacturing strategies - Case studies of an agility taxonomy. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 303-312.