The importance of inter-organizational system (IOS) has been increasingly recognized by organizations. However, IOS adoption has proved to be difficult and, at this stage, why this is so is not fully uncovered. Based on a previously published empirical study, the authors argue that the ”factor “ approach, which has been widely used to study technology adoption, is not generally appropriate to study IOS adoption. To further examine this claim, this paper reviews the literature in order to identify the current state of IOS adoption studies. For this purpose, the factor and processual approaches are defined and used to bring order to the existing studies. This review finds that, until recently the majority of IOS studies have used the factor approach and that they have yielded inconsistent results. It also demonstrates that the use of the processual approach is just being recognized and a research gap exists for this kind of study.

This paper begins with a critical review of the literature on Knowledge Management (KM), arguing that its focus on IT-based tools limits its potential for encouraging the knowledge sharing that is crucial to interactive innovation processes. Interactive innovation processes depend on the integration of knowledge across disparate social communities and require the exploration (creation) of knowledge, rather than simply the improved exploitation of knowledge. Knowledge exploration depends on shared understanding, which is difficult where those involved are from different cultural and disciplinary backgrounds. In these situations, knowledge has to be continuously negotiated through interactive social networking processes. These processes are under-emphasised in most of the KM literature. Two cases of interactive innovation processes are presented. The contrast between these two cases leads to the development of two alternative approaches to KM: the community approach emphasises dialogue occurring through networks (which may be IT-enabled) while the cognitive approach emphasises linear information flows. It is argued that, at least in terms of encouraging interactive innovation processes, the community model is superior

Abstract not found

Mobile Internet, which refers to the use of the Internet via a handheld device (such as mobile phone or PDA), has received much attention in various countries. At this stage, little is known why this technology has been used widely in some countries such as Japan and Korea, and has not been so in other countries. To enrich the existing studies in this context, which are currently limited, this paper explores the Australian consumer’s perception of mobile Internet in order to identify some factors that may foster or hinder its use. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is employed to provide the theoretical foundation for this study. Based on the empirical data collected from a survey, the findings demonstrate the importance of functionality (usefulness), an easy-to-use interface, and social networks as critical influences on both intention to use and the extent of usage of mobile Internet in Australia.

Abstract: In today’s business world, Small-to-Medium enterprises (SMEs) increasingly join their larger

The innovating self: Exploring self among a group of technological innovators

Despite a voluminous literature and widespread belief in the inherent value of innovation, our understanding of the innovation construct remains rudimentary. Extant research on innovation spans across a variety of disciplines and levels of analysis. Yet, the divergence in core assumptions and methodologies across disciplines, coupled with few systematic efforts to integrate findings, have seriously hampered the crossfertilization of research ideas in the field of innovation. The motivation for this work stems from the fragmentary nature of innovation research and the need for a more holistic, ecumenical outlook on innovation. We believe that this paper takes a step toward overcoming disciplinary myopia and a further step toward synthesizing the diverse innovation literature. In this paper, we provide a synopsis of the innovation literature, with an emphasis on how innovation may potentially be reframed to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the construct. To this end, the paper is structured as follows. First, we outline various semantic definitions of innovation and their lexical variants. We then briefly discuss three confluent, but distinct terms (creativity, invention and organizational change) often mistakenly perceived to be synonymous with innovation. Next, we delineate the levels of analysis associated with innovation research and describe exemplary research emerging from these domains. Finally, we identify a number of promising research directions and propose an integrative cross-level model of innovation to energize future innovation research. 3

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1460-1060.htm EJIM

This article aims to evaluate the innovation management capacities of knowledge intensive business services (KIBS) and verify to what extent these companies return different profiles when classified by urban versus rural. Taking a sample of 500 KIBS, we applied a questionnaire with results revealing different explanatory variables for KIBS innovation capacities. From the set of five dimensions studied, factors relating strategy, learning, and network best explained rural versus urban KIBS innovation capacities.

Uncertainty is a part of any IS project. When developing something new and previously untried there must be uncertainty. In the literature, however, uncertainty is often mixed with risk and treated solely through risk management. We decided to take a closer look at uncertainty. Based on in-depth analysis of qualitative interviews with experienced IS project managers we identify four different types of uncertainty, which we call Task uncertainty, Collaborative uncertainty, Process uncertainty, and Individual uncertainty. We also derive project management coping strategies for dealing with each of the four kinds of uncertainty.